The rise of the strength sports - and associated trends

Many have noted the rise of popularity of the strength sports, particularly Olympic and power lifting. A spin off from the training faciliites offering ‘Crossfit’, many suggest, which is a positive for the respective strength sports (and equipment suppliers to these sports!)

What has also become apparent is the trends in training in some circles. Take for example the trend of powerlifting training six days a week, including 3-4 squat sessions a week and at least one three lift day each week.

Training trends far removed from the practice and wisdom of only a few decades ago.

Now as a student of training, I am always open to take a lesson. However as part of being a student I also apply the practice of creating hypothesis for the purpose of testing theories.

So here I go – generally speaking, all things being equal, those adopting these new trends in training in the strength sports will enjoy initial gains. Then they will plateau (within 2 years). And then they will have significant injuries (within 4 years).

Just a hypothesis. I look forward to the study conclusions in the years to come based on adequate samples sizes of at least case studies. Happy however not to be one of the guinea pigs!

Planning a specialisation strength program

One of the great challenges for a person (including the 'professional' coach/consultant) is to design a strength training program around a body part or line of movement specialisation program. This challenge was reflected in this question i received from a KSI client:

Since I no longer train for sporting prowess/performance (basketball and track), but simply for health/fitness (and to keep up with my kids’ play) yet, feeling like a “somewhat” concrete goal might be fun, I’ve been looking at various "symmetry" scales and formulae (McCallum's, as well as Willoughby's in your GBIV), which has quickly made me become aware of a few things: My training/sporting background gave me a solid lower-body foundation (hips/glutes being 3” above “ideal”, thighs 2½” above "ideal", and calves 1"), but to the "detriment" of upper body symmetry.

For example, according to various scales (and, of course, I realize fully this is just for “fun” and to give a general perspective on things), chest size is below by 2”, arms by 1 to 1½ inches, forearms 1 inch, and neck, 1¼ inch!!!!!

In terms of strength, and as one would expect, lower body strength is well above average, and upper body is just around average, except for one glaring exception: shoulder pressing strength is well below (in spite of having reasonable shoulder development?!?). So, this leads me to the following (and was hoping to get your feedback)…

I was considering giving your Great Guns program a go (which I thought would be a great way of emphasizing arm/forearm development), but was wondering how to prioritize (or deprioritize the lower body, as the case may be) other lagging parts (neck, chest, and, then, shoulder pressing strength)?

Should I postpone those other areas to future cycles/phases? Is there any way to work on chest size AND shoulder strength, WHILE still prioritizing arms? Or is this overkill? Your comments, as always, are appreciated.—Éric

To which I responded with:

Eric- a specialization program is just that – specializing in one area. What I taught in my 1998 ‘How to Write’, in my 1999 book ‘Get Buffed!’ and throughout my articles in various magazines (hard copy and online), every singe program creates a priority – by virtue of the sequence, relative volumes and relative load potential of the exercises provided.

You are leaning towards doing the arm specialization program, which is great, but at the same time are wishing you could specialize in a number of other muscle groups. When you specialize by sequence - which is inherent in all program by default – assuming volume to each muscle group or line of movement is equal, you still have prioritization or specialisation.

However when you add prioritization or specialization by volume also, which occurs in specialization programs such as the ‘Great Guns’ program – you are forced then to reduce volume in other muscle groups or lines of movement. What you are being tempted to do is overload your program, which in turn will overload your body. This is common in strength training, and the most common outcome is the conclusion that growth without drugs is impossible.

This is not correct. The best way to answer your own question – and that is the purpose and intent of my educational material, to help you make your own decisions – is to determine the amount of volume (lets use the simple method of number of sets to measure that) to your number one specialization. In this case, you have nominated your arms.

Lets take my general recommended volume range of 8-15 sets per workout (not including abdominal, control or warm up sets) and use the average number of 12. Now lets use my maximum number of workouts per 7 day cycle that I believe suits most and that is four workouts a week. We are left with 60 work sets in total for the week.

Once you have worked out how many sets you want to allocate from these 60 sets to your number one specialization priority (in this case your arms), then allocate volume (total number of sets) to your remaining body.

You can show a secondary priority and a third priority – in fact this will happen by default – and so to some extent you can sequence your priorities, but no other muscle group other than your arms is going to get real prioritisation.

On the flip side the only way you can do a specialization program and get away with it is to put other muscle groups / lines of movement on hold, or in maintenance. This applies to training outside of strength training also, which has direct application for all athletes.

So I know, I have not answered your question in the way you may have been hoping – in the old world ‘I am the guru and the only way you will get anywhere is through me’ approach – but I believe I have answered your question from the ‘you are your own guru’ perspective, or at least nudged you to realize your own ability to answer your questions.—Ian King

Now I'll be the first to agree that the challenge of designing a strength program around a specialisation program is a challenging task. The approach I use and teach my high level coaches at an individual consulting level is one that applies a series of high level decisions and a considerable time to construct the training program, which is a level of excellence and cost that many avoid in the 'hope' that their quicker, less considered decisions are adequate. I am continually amazed at how humans give their motor vehicle more individualised service than their bodies!

To answer the challenges presented by this task i encourage close study of my Get Buffed! educational series and or a program design consultation with one of my high level coaches.

Ian King

PS. The following response was received:

Ian... Contrary to what you might have implied in your last paragraph, this has been IMMENSELY useful. Right in line with your espoused philosophy and educational approach of "teaching a man how to fish" rather than simply "giving him the fish"

As you know, I already own a very extensive library of much of your material but, in some cases, getting a fresh perspective and slightly different angle (with a more specific context) on some of the ideas can help one along in exactly the right way.

This will help guide me with my planned phases. If need be, I'll send you a copy of my written program, for some more specific guidelines, but I feel you've already done more than enough.

As always, I'm grateful for your time, insights and wisdom.

Be well...
-Eric

Which Get Buffed! book should I go to after I finish the Book of Muscle?

This would be one of the most common questions I get from BOM graduates – which book in my Get Buffed! book range to go to. What I tell people is this – the Get Buffed! book range is more than just a collection of generic progressive programs. They are packed with progressive education.

I understand that this may not be readily apparent, as it is common for prolific authors to create book ‘series’ of the same name, however with no connection or pattern or reason or purpose between the books other than to create short term cash flow and put their name back up the Amazon authors list. The Get Buffed! book range is not a series – it is a sequel. A true sequel. With a plan, with purpose and with progression. I have not seen an equivalent multi-book sequel in my lifetime.

So putting aside the program comparison between the Book of Muscle and Get Buffed! series, if you jump over the GB 1 book, you miss a massive part of the lessons available.

I know, you would imagine the content of the BOM and the GB 1 book may overlap. Let me stress this – the GB 1 was not edited down to suit the perceptions and paradigms of mainstream book publishers. It talks my language, and the language of success in physique training. 

Now lets talk about the life-time value of the Get Buffed! books. The content in these books will serve you for life. They have done for me, and thousands of athletes during the last 30+ years who have relied on my training guidance. You will want to have all the books on your library shelve, and I hope they take pride of place – they are not trend based, they are based on generalized principles that never change. They will be potentially your best source of lifetime training every published. Big statement I know, but there is simply no other options for 1,200 pages of progressive education and progressive generic programs based on honesty and originality, and tried and proven in the real world with elite athletes .

Now let’s talk about the programs. When I wrote my first mass-marketed generic program, it hurt. It hurt because it went against everything I believed it. You see, for the 19 years of coaching prior to the 1999 release of these original programs and training methods, I had always individualized programs. My concern with providing generic programs is that is send the wrong message – that a generic program is good enough. It’s not. An individualized program is better every time. But I took heart in concluding that a great generic program may be better than what most people are doing.

However because of my concerns about generic programs I went to massive lengths to provide guidance on how you as an end user could modify the programs to individualize it. This approach spawned a number of latter books by other ‘authors’, but at the end of the day they still defaulted back to using copies of my workouts, slightly modified.

In fact the programs in the Get Buffed series have been so impacting, one ‘expert’ published a workout in a mainstream bodybuilding magazine in about 2011, that was so identical to the Get Buffed! 1 program that even I had trouble telling them apart.

Now for the program comparison. Here was my brief – in the BOM I was asked to produce 3 workout a week programs. Understand this – even if the BOM program was identical to the GB 1 program (which it is not) it would not make the GB 1 program redundant because the GB 1 (and II, III and IV) programs are all 4 day a week programs. In other words, the volume per week is 33% higher. You body would need at least the three months of the GB 1 program just to adapt to this.

So for me the answer to your question is simple – the Get Buffed! 1 book is the place to start even for graduates of the advanced program in the BOM.

Now for those who say this recommendation is commercially driven. Lets get a few things clear. In case you don’t know me and haven’t figured it out, I have not time for those who place profit before purpose, or their own personal gain ahead of others needs. For example, the BOM nearly didn’t happen because there was an attempt to change the status of the primary author, myself. Yes, I was prepared to walk away from that deal if the publishers didn’t keep their word. And the BOM program has been my single most lucrative program I have ever written. Not convinced? There was a certain internet magazine whose direction I didn’t agree with, and despite their offer to double my pay, I chose to leave. Then there is our policy of GB IV. If  you don’t have all the three prior books on your shelf, we won’t sell you the GB IV (we can do that because we are the sole distributors). If fact I would love to stipulate that you can only get GB II after you have GB I etc.  but that may be going too far.

The GB book  range really doesn’t make us much money at all. Between the cost of production and shipping etc, we really don’t make anything.  I am confident those who have knocked off our content have made a lot more than we have, and they are doing so faking it was their experience and conclusions!  So the suggestion that my recommendation is commercially driven is a waste of time. I would rather walk home naked than to take your money if I wasn’t convinced you were going to have your life significantly changed for the better by the exchange. In fact, we often give people their money back just to get rid of them if we can’t solve their life problems.

I have put my life’s experiences into the GB educational range, and whilst I walk this planet, I will do all I can (within the constraints of the weak international copyright laws) to ensure the contents of GB are used to create the outcomes that were intended, for the reasons that were intended when we created this educational range.

So yes – start with GB!

Ian King

PS.  Check out  our Book of Muscle Facebook page -   http://on.fb.me/17ESbCj or our Get Buffed! Facebook page - http://on.fb.me/15LcUDq

Performance enhancing vs. health supplements

I recently received a question on the KSI Members Forum at http://bit.ly/mOmuCB which sought guidance regarding supplements.  They knew which brand I use for ‘health’, and wondered what brand I used for ‘performance enhancing’.

Q. Could everyone share what brand of supplements do you use or recommend for performance/training purposes? Be it strength training, bodybuilding, sport, etc.

Here is in part my response: (the full exchange can be seen at https://bitly.com/)

A…..as for performance enhancing – I don't see a line between health and performance enhancing, and I rarely recommend any other brands for anything. There are very few holes in this companies range and it just keeps getting better.

As Carl does, I add raw eggs from my back yard organically fed chooks when I want to boost the protein content of their meal replacement powder, and or cream / yogurt etc.

I have been using protein supplements for 30 years now and find this brand the only one that i stay leaner on (note i said leaner, because I am not focused on nor am I overly lean)

….you have, as most do, simply come in with the conditioned thinking from mainstream marketing in physical preparation.  Most other companies and their users have no chance of understanding this as the 'health' products (e.g. vitamins) that they make are pretty muchly useless and give no effect to the person.

What you are about to see is an explosion in this companies sponsored athletes -remarkable when you consider they pay no athlete to endorse - just give product (imagine some other companies doing that......)

Learn more here: http://bit.ly/tUg39d

There was enough information on how to get buffed by the 1950s!

I believe there was enough information on how to Get Buffed!™ by the 1950s. Some would say that this is not so because there were relatively few people who were buffed! True, but I suggest the limitation was access to the info, not an absence of information.

Fast forward to now, some 60 years later - and I suggest there is too much information. Or at least too much worthless information, written by stamp collector like keyboard warriors seeking to sell another instant ebook or rehashed copy-a-collection-of-other-peoples-works book.

The challenge or limiting factor in the 1950s to Get Buffed!™ may have been the challenge of getting access to the information, in the snail mail world of that time. Now its knowing which information to read.

I suggest that if in doubt, check out what they were doing in training and nutrition during the 1950s. Start with John Grimek, Steve Reeves and Reg Park - the last of the pre-drug era bodybuilders.

Yes, there may have been some advancements in training since then, however at least you know you are studying information from people who have achieved and then shared, rather than the many of authors in the get buffed space who jumped past the achieving thing like a game of snakes and ladders, going straight to the sharing part. Just what they are sharing is the issue.

Start your Reg Park studies at http://www.regpark.net/

I enjoy my workouts with Reg looking over me!

WTA athletes talk nutrition

Is this you? Confused about stretching?

I recently received this excellent question that I believe typifies the mess most find themselves in due to the way information is brokered and thinking controlled by those seeking to be the gatekeepers:

Subject: To Ian King, About your article in T-Mag #89 (Lazy Man's Guide..) Please Help

Hello, I really need help about stretching because my mind is a mess because of stretching articles (especially in T-Nation and exrx.net), forums etc. There are PNF's, dynamic, static; before workouts, after workouts...

My story is this: Last year (2010 May), about the pain in my elbow areas, doctor said that I've tennis elbow. After a long break, I started to work out 2 weeks ago, again. Because I know that I've a problem in my elbow, I worked with light weights. But, after the second workout I felt the same pain again in my elbow area. I went to another doctor this time and he said that I've triceps tendonitis. His recommendation was to do a static stretching after the warm-up (but before weight lifting), 20 rep * 30 sec. I don't really trust Turkish medical system and its doctors but I'm sure he knows much more than I do. Even though the stretching routine he recommended is interesting, I think his diagnosis is correct.

I don't know what to do. A lot of people say "never do static-stretching before the weight-lifting, static stretching makes your muscles weaker" and this makes me think "My muscles and probably tendons are already weak and if I do static-stretching before the workout, can I become more susceptible to injuries?" Lots of other questions arise while reading articles.

What should I do? The fitness world shouldn't be this complicated for a newbie! It's just stretching! :)

Thanks Ian.

--xxx

xx – I understand your confusion – a product of the information age as I talk about in my video here: www.getbuffed.net

Before I address your email let me categorically state my opinion – any person training who does not stretch, increases the likelihood in injury with each passing day. Of course that is my opinion, however that opinion is based on more experience than most. In fact, I haven’t found too many who have trained more athletes in more sports in more countries for more years. So if you trust experience, that may mean something. If you trust science only, it won’t. If you want to do what everyone else is doing at any given time, it may not.

Let’s talk about science briefly. Lyn Jones, former Australian and US weightlifting coach, said that scientists are historians. I agree.  Squatting was not ‘scientifically acceptable’ until the 1990s. Nor were amino acids and protein powders and multi-vitamins. If you were a person who wanted to conform to science you would not have used these exercises or nutrients until the 1990s. That could have been at cost to you in your training had you been at the grindstone for the prior one to two decades.

In the late 1980s, as the first person to do so, I recognized the role of the pause between the eccentric and concentric contractions in strength training. My theory was not scientifically support until the early 1990s. Did that stop thousands of athletes who I trained between these periods from using and benefiting from my hypothesis that they knew to be my three digit timing system? No. Why? Because athletes don’t wait for science to catch up. Science tends to study what athletes are doing to see if it is justifiable.  Science isn’t bad. It’s just behind the front line. You need to decide if you want to wait for science of move with earlier indicators.

Now let’s discuss social conformity. You are not alone is seeking to conform. 95% of the population is estimated to share your beliefs.   Then there are the trend spotters, who promote training concepts only when they feel there is enough support so they won’t be considered whacky, but not so much awareness that they can still convince the majority they are the saviour, bringing the news to the people. Stretching is the greatest example of this. I have for over 30 years verbally and in writing supported static stretching. The numbers joining me got very thin during the late 1990s and early 2000s when the crowds seeking to stone us got larger. In fact, I don’t know of any other voice who stood firm on this. Now I see the trend spotters rushing to position themselves as experts in static stretching, making and offering ‘how to video’s’ for their commercial gain. The same people who sought the safety and comfort of the dominant paradigm when it wasn’t safe to venture out with an ‘I believe static stretching is great and should be done at the start of training’ t-shirt on.

So you are not alone. You are joined by the masses, and encouraged by the trend spotters seeking to commercially exploit the latest social trends.

Now back to your story. You were sore so you sought to get stronger. You have accepted another popular dominant myth – that if you are injured it is because you are weak. Mmmm. So you sought to strength it and made it worse. No surprise there.

You should go and kiss that doctor. He is a wise man in his recommendation, albeit his strength program is a bit thin on volume.

You are right – the world shouldn’t be complicated – it’s just stretching! I’ve been saying this for decades! Well, in the 1970s and 1980s is was like this. The books were few but there was not fear or pressure to deny the role of static stretching. It was when those who had positioned themselves as experts in training and research were challenged by the rising interest in stretching during the 1990s that they had to delay the inevitable to give themselves a chance to learn more about an area they had neglected, to maybe train so they could have some to and then position themselves as an expert. Well, they have had a decade or so, and now I see they feel more comfortable about the topic, so the tide is turning – the masses are now being slowly given the green light – by the very same people who held up a red light until they could get a handle on it.

So don’t be a bunny. Do what I did. Ignore all advice and experiment in an objective, rational manner on yourself. Come to your own conclusions about training, without fear or favour. Even if these conclusions leave you alienated by society for a year or 2o.

I wrote this in my 2005 philosophy of training book that may assist: *

p. 17… Resist the temptation in program design to conform to mainstream paradigms simply for the sake of conforming, no matter how dogmatically they are presented, or how much you may be ridiculed or ostracized for trusting your intuition over conformity.

And this from my 2005 bok about stretching and dogma…

p. 39… Due to the significant absence of flexibility training in training programs to date, most athletes, coaches and other ‘experts’ have never been involved significantly in a stretching training program. Despite this, and despite the obvious physical manifestations of lacking ability to demonstrate range of movement, many form outspoken and dogmatic positions on topics including stretching

You should really listen to at least part 1 of my Barbells and Bullshit audio or DVD program (I have loaded part 1 of this series on the KSI membership site).

Thanks for communicating. You are an excellent example of the average person torn between conforming with current trends and social pressures, and doing what they intuitively suspect may be best for themselves.  Will what I wrote help? Not sure – depends whether you want to be part of the 95% victims of social conformity or the 5% victors.

All the best.

Ian King

* [not to be confused with the blatant paraphrasing copies like this since been published in places that I thought had more integrity:

… When designing training programs, resist the pressure to conform to any tradition or system of beliefs, no matter how dogmatically that tradition or those beliefs are presented, or how much you get "slammed" for not conforming]