—by Victor Preuninger

Introduction

One of the few universal truths in the fitness industry is that a person walking into the gym their first time is always prompted to be there by a reason. No one ever walks into a gym out of sheer, blind impulse. There first exists a problem, however grand or minute, for which that individual is seeking a solution. In their journey to solve that problem, some will succeed, many others will fail. In either outcome, there were at the start good intentions. So what really differentiates those who fail from those who don’t? A great many factors are at play, but let’s take a look at one of the main reasons people succeed, starting with a brief digression into our collective past.

—

Human beings have accomplished incredible things in our history, feats of the mind as well as feats of the body. We have travelled to the moon and back (on multiple occasions), we have constructed buildings that reach the heavens, we have climbed the highest mountains and explored the depths of the ocean. Men have lifted half-ton weights off the ground with their hands, they have run faster than anyone ever thought possible. We have explored the nature of life down to it’s most basic component parts, and by learning to split the atom, we have realized ways to end life that almost overwhelm the imagination.

In every possible way, man has striven for higher, faster, stronger, farther, smarter, cleaner, deeper, deadlier, more inventive, more beautiful, more creative, more efficient and more powerful. At any given time, if there is a limit to something, there is a human being seeking to exceed it.

What is it in us that (for better and certainly at times, for worse) has driven such advancement?

To a large extent, we may thank our curiosity for bringing us out of the primordial slime.  All of our knowledge at some point was gained as a by-product of our natural curiosity. Our constant sense of wonder leading us to ask how something works or why it was that way. Whether something could be done, and if so, when? Our big brains and our nimble fingers set to work from the dawn of man figuring out the nature of the world around us.

And yet, that really only gives us the “why” of our question. The practicial issue of “how” lies in another element.

In answer to a query as to why he climbed Everest, Sir Edmund Hilary famously replied “Because it is there.” But no one ever thought to ask him why he sought to be the FIRST to climb it, or to phrase it another way, how did he accomplish that which no one else had been able to do before. I imagine that the answer they would’ve gotten would be a little different.

Why did the United States succeed in placing a man on the moon? It wasn’t because we were curious as to our ability to do so. If it were merely that, it likely would not have happened for decades, if at all. If we simply wanted to know what was up there, we could’ve spent a few more years working on the type of robotic technology that we use nowadays to bring us back rocks and moon dust. The true answer is obvious. It was because the Russians were trying also and we wanted to do it first.

Similar examples can be found everywhere. The nuclear arms race, the telephone, AC current, the Polio vaccine, the Empire State building. Countless patents, theorems, works of architecture and exploration have arrived as the direct result of someone trying to do it faster or better than someone else.

Does this seem immature? You could say that. But in the scope of history, it cannot be denied that it certainly has gotten things done, and for the most part, it has been for our greater good. If neccessity is the mother of invention, competition is the father who’s hurrying it along the way.

Of course, there are exceptions. Many great accomplishments have arrived without this form of direct competition, at least not on the surface: In 1952, Dr. Christiaan Barnard, a South African cardiac surgeon, became the first person to successfully perform a human-to- human heart transplant. As far as I know, there was no “race” to be the first surgeon to do so. Yet a quick look at his academic history will tell you that this is a person who was in all likelihood highly competitive in nature, if not directly with others, then with himself. Medicine being one of the highest fields of human endeavor, requires years and years of fierce academic competition, which in the end forges the most elite minds and talents history has to offer. Those individuals go on to accomplish things that change the course of history. Competition ultimately allows the cream to rise to the top.

—

The art and music which is closest to our hearts has typically arrived from a more altruistic place. Yes, art can be competitive, fiercely so. Yet for every ballerina seeking greater prominence amongst her peers, or violinist struggling to make it to first chair at the NYC Philharmonic, or painter yearning for reknown, there are Van Goghs, Basquiats, Cobains and others who, not seeking to beat anyone else, are merely doing that which they felt compelled to do. But even at the core of those examples, is a great deal of competition, with themselves, with their own perceptions of their self, with other’s perceptions of that self, with a dissatisfaction with conventional modes of inner expression.

These are intangible qualities to strive against. People who achieve greatness in this rare, and so often tragic way, are few and far between. As a practical matter, this falls outside our context.

By and large, competitive people want to be better than something. Better than who they are right now. Better than the average Joe. Better than they were yesterday. Better because they are never satisfied with being just good enough. Yet in this day and age, where motivational posters and feel-good pep talks are a dime a dozen, that sentiment begins to sounds trite. We ALL want to be better people than we were yesterday. It is different to merely want something, however, than to feel so utterly compelled that every moment in which further pursuit of that desire is squandered becomes painful, unbearable. Competition brings that sense of urgency with it, a sense of immediacy that begins to take priority over all the little things that can stand in it’s way. Training is no longer a pasttime or a chore, it is a neccesity. The willingness to do what must be done no longer seems like a lofty ideal, it becomes merely routine.

So become a competitor. Stake the results of your training to a contest, a challenge. Something with a date that will limit prep time to only what you really need, leaving no room to fall off for months or even a few weeks before said date arrives. Pay an advanced entry fee. Make your challenge known to others so they will hold you accountable in their esteem if you fail. Imagine every day the other people who are training even harder than you, with even more heart and determination. Resign yourself to outdoing them.

Whatever the challenge may be, if you commit in earnest, your training will evolve from being something you “just do” to something that carries intent and purpose. Looking at the date on the calendar and feeling the intoxicating mix of fear, anticipation, self-respect and determination that comes with it will drive you to train harder.

Sign up for an inter-office or online weight loss challenge. Join a rec sports league. Commit yourself to a 10k run. Enter an amature fitness show. Run a Spartan Race. Try a powerlifting meet. Complete a triatholon.

Attempt to bite off more than you can chew. Pick something that scares you a little bit. Maybe pick something that scares you a LOT. Pick something your family will think you’re crazy to even try. Bet someone who thinks you will fail $100 that they’ve never been more wrong in their life. Do something that you will be PROUD to look back on having achieved.

It doesn’t matter what you try, and in the end, it doesn’t even matter if you win or lose. The battle you fight as you walk along the path will be the greatest reward.

—By Brooke Terry

Introduction

Generally speaking, a lack of muscular development is not what is hindering you from having the flat belly or abdominal definition that you desire.   Nearly every movement, from running to lifting to swimming, requires involvement of the abdominal muscles.  The reason that you can’t launder your clothes on your abdominals yet is because they are hidden under a layer of fat.

In an effort to achieve a flat belly or washboard abs, the first inclination of many is to hit the gym.  I will be the first to admit that I have done every abdominal gymnastic out there with the same goal in mind.  For example, I have engaged in every variation of your standard floor-crunch, including the full crunch, the half crunch, and the twist and crunch.  I have also attempted most of these on a decline bench at those times when I have managed to entangle my legs on the bench sufficiently to ensure that dismounting would be problematic.   I once did something called a scissor kick and, well, let us just say that someone nearly lost an eye.  To be sure, I did feel sore after having exercised my abdominals.  But, despite my best efforts, I never benefitted from any appreciable difference in abdominal definition from these exercises.   If only I had known that if I really wanted to reveal my abdominals, I needed to get myself in the kitchen.

This is because nutrition is the key to losing fat and achieving that flat stomach or abs of steel that you seek.  Here are a few tips that I like to follow:

Eat fewer calories:  Eating fewer calories is fundamental to a fat-loss diet.  But, fewer calories does not necessarily mean less food by weight or by volume.   Vegetables, which are generally low in calories and high in fiber, are a great addition to a fat-loss diet.  Leafy greens, such as lettuce and spinach, are healthy and satiating.  Other vegetables, including broccoli, green beans, cucumbers, peppers, cabbage, asparagus, onions, mushrooms, celery, carrots, and more, are also fat-loss friendly.

Eat fewer carbohydrates:   Eating fewer calories from carbohydrates is also an essential part of a fat-loss diet.  Carbohydrates break down into glucose, which, if not utilized by the body, is stored as fat.  On a carbohydrate restricted diet, the body must break down existing fat stores for energy, resulting in fat loss.  High carbohydrate foods that have a limited place in a fat-loss diet include cereal, rice, potatoes, pasta, white bread, corn, peas, and beans.  It is also worth mentioning, although it is rather obvious, that this list includes table sugar, candy, frozen yogurt, and ice cream.

Eat six small meals per day:   Eating six small meals, consisting mostly of lean protein and healthy fats, causes an increase in metabolism, which results in the body burning more calories throughout the day.   It also has the added benefit of preventing you from overeating at lunch time and wanting to face plant on your desk at 2pm.  Sources of lean protein include boneless skinless chicken breast, white meat turkey, canned tuna, tilapia, cod, low fat cottage cheese, reduced fat milk, Greek yogurt, and egg whites.  Sources of healthy fats, also known as monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat, include olive oil, canola oil, nuts, avocado, salmon, and mackerel.   Salmon and mackerel are also excellent sources of omega-3 fatty acids.

Track your meals:  Food tracking has two purposes.  First, it is a fun way of learning the number of calories in a particular portion of food and its macronutrient breakdown.  Second, it prevents dieters from eating in denial.  Tracking raises awareness of not just food choices, but also food quantity.  There are many free and excellent websites that allow for searching and tracking of food.   There are also numerous phone applications dedicated to meal tracking.

Pack your meals:  An excellent accompaniment to tracking one’s food, is packing one’s meals.  Hunger does not often result in the most rational food choices or the measured intake of a quantity of food.  And restaurants often lack, or have a limited number of, truly fat-loss friendly options that are tasty and fulfilling.  Packing meals ahead of time, either the morning of or the day before, is the most certain way to ensure success on a fat-loss diet.  For a busy professional, however, packing might seem like an unrealistic chore.  Truth is, there are many fat-loss friendly foods that require little or no cooking, and are quick and portable.  Bottles of protein powder and bags of nuts can be kept at work and will not perish.  Vegetables can be quickly and easily packed, as can cups of Greek yogurt, cottage cheese, pouches of tuna, and packaged deli meat.

Conclusion

As you can see, the key to your stomach is, well, your stomach!  Paying close attention to what goes in it will have a greater impact on how it looks than what you do in the gym.  So, instead of doing a crunch, it is time to start packing your lunch!

by Victor Preuninger

When people ask me what I do for a living, I tell them that I’m a personal trainer. “Oh, that’s nice,” they say. “Maybe you can give me some tips for getting in shape.”

My response is usually to tell them to start eating healthy first, before they even start thinking about the gym. The majority of the results they are looking for can be found in
the kitchen.

Yet I somehow have a sinking feeling inside that they are putting me in a particular box. Inside that box, next to me, is sitting every personal trainer with whom I’ve ever
left a 3 minute conversation wanting to rip their bosu ball out of their hands, smash it over their mousse-spiked, bleach blonde hair-covered skull, and dump their whey protein shake over their too-tight, over-priced, Under-Armour shirt.

Often times I simply say “I’m a strength coach,” but since that often comes with additional explanation that I tend to find wearying, I stick with the basic and swallow my pride as I imagine their assumptions.

So, why so much dislike for my own kind? Am I just a trainer hater, a self-loather?

No. I personally believe in the good that personal trainers can do. The experience and practical knowledge we can and should impart upon our clients is tangible and has value. I will go farther than to merely say that what we do is a benefit, I believe it’s
of great importance. With that importance comes an obligation to maintain our
integrity, and to do our job as well we are able.

So, it’s not that I think all personal trainers suck. It’s just that the vast majority do. I know it’s not enough for me to sit here at my keyboard and just claim that they suck, so
let me explain what differentiates, in my not-so-humble opinion, a good, earnest trainer from one who should maybe consider a career as a DJ, party promoter, ecstasy dealer, professional douchebag, or T.V. evangelist.

1. Trainers are educators.

The first thing to remind one’s self of is, just because a person likes to work out, that does not necessarily make them a good trainer. However, the enjoyment of working out seems to be the primary reason people get into this profession. Above all, a trainer has to know what the hell they’re talking about, and they have to be able to impart what they know to their clients. If the trainer gives bad information, they fail the client on every level. Education is not only conveying facts, but also clearing up misconceptions and removing false ideas the client may be basing their assumptions about fitness on.  A good trainer will go to great pains to dispel his client’s misconceptions about common fitness notions. One of the biggest ones, for example, is the so-called spot reduction myth. The idea is that working specific problem areas such as the triceps, abdominals or outer thighs with greater focus will act as a solution to fixing those places where, cosmetically, a client is unhappy with the appearance of fat and loose skin. Any trainer with even the most basic knowledge of what they are doing will be
able to explain exactly why spot reduction IS a myth and why a client is not only wasting time and energy, but in some cases hurting themselves by over training these trouble spots. As a trainer, I can testify that people are stubborn about letting go of such myths, which can be so deeply ingrained that it can take a lot of debating and convincing to show the client that they are wrong. But the individual will be well-served by being disabused of such notions, and it’s a big part of the help that we trainers can give them.

On the flip side, a lot of trainers not only go through no effort at all to do this, many will make indulging such fantasy a selling point. I have heard trainers on too many occasions to recall, tell their clients that this move or that move will “lengthen” or “tone” a particular area, emphasizing that, in doing so, that movement will not increase the bulkiness of the muscle but rather give it “that long, lean look.” Trained, certified, fit individuals, mind you. Some of whom were pretty open to me about the fact that they knew they were handing over a line of crap, with the added justification that it was “what the client wanted to hear.” Better for their clients, or for their bottom line?

2. Practicing what we preach.

The guidelines that govern general fitness are, despite an enormously diverse rainbow of individual concerns and varying factors, relatively uniform. The basic physiology of human beings does not vary a great deal from one human to another, at least not insofar as eating right and working out are concerned. Therefore, although my workouts look drastically different from those of my octogenarian clients or my post-surgery clients, the underlying principles remain in place. I may have my elderly clients squat with their hands holding onto an object for support, or with their back against a stability ball, but the underlying reason is the same as why I have my more athletic clients, my powerlifters and myself, squat with a barbell. The best trainers I have seen also do this. What bothers me is when I see a trainer working out in the gym, day after day, then bringing in clients of a reasonable level of health and fitness, and having them perform movements that not only have I never seen before –and cannot understand the possible function of– but that I’ve never seen that trainer actually do, or anything even vaguely similar in their own training.

For example, there is a trainer in one of the gyms where I work (let’s call him Jim). Jim works out in a pretty standard way: barbells, weights, a few machines, calisthenics, you get the idea. But give Jim a client, especially a female, and all of a sudden it’s one-legged bent over dumbbell rows on a bosu ball and really, REALLY awkward clean and jerk-like spasms with a bar attached at both ends to a cable stack. I’m not kidding. The urge to run over and demand an explanation (Just…WHY???) is almost stronger than my urge to remain a level headed professional. There is no explanation that can justify it, but it seems all too common that trainers like Jim seek to differentiate themselves with gimmickry like this, at the expense of their clients, getting results. The sad thing is that it WORKS. Jim has a few clients, mostly women, who struggle through a line-up of the most awkward- looking attempts at exercise you’ve seen since the last time the circus was in town. It would be one thing if Jim actually did these things himself and had some results to show for it (though I would still question his methods aggressively), but he is the equivalent of a financial guru telling you to get rich on penny stocks while he makes his money on gold. It’s dishonest.

3. Don’t be afraid to change your mind or admit when you are wrong.

This one may not come up very often, but be wary of a trainer who seems unwilling to
admit that they were wrong, changed their mind, or don’t know something about a
particular subject. Kinesiology, exercise, nutrition, aging, etc., are not fields where concrete facts have been in place for centuries. A lot is still theoretical, a lot of the small hows and whys are still unknown or unclear, a lot of information that we thought was good five or ten years ago turns out to be wrong, and a lot still rides on experiential understanding of how things work. So, your trainer, no matter how good they are, does not know everything. A great trainer will constantly seek out new ideas and compare them to what he is doing without fear or insecurity, so his training can evolve in a positive way. A great trainer will hear about new aspects of an area he’d thought
himself familiar with, listen with an open mind, then seek to use the information or to look into it deeply for a more solid understanding. I once had a client who was a chemical engineer and an ultra-marathon runner, two areas affecting my field that I previously knew very little about. That guy told me tons of things I didn’t know, and I looked forward to every hour I trained with him. Sometimes he would disagree with me on a particular aspect, giving me a chance to defend my standpoint intellectually, which thereby made my own understanding of it stronger and enriched his experience as well. The bottom line is, if your trainer thinks they know everything, they don’t know anything at all.

4. Stay inside your area of expertise.

People may get touchy about this one, but I hate it when I see a trainer who has no
idea how to throw a punch themselves attempting to teach boxing combinations to
their clients, or worse, a trainer who has never done a heavy lift in their life
attempting to teach a 200 pound man how to deadlift properly. This complaint is
somewhat similar to the second and third peeves on my list, or rather, it’s a
combination. These are not trainers who are necessarily giving their clients one set of ideas and then doing another. Often, they are going outside their area of expertise at the request of the client. Other times they just don’t feel the need to be particularly well-versed on a subject before they begin teaching it (it’s just boxing a mitt, right?). Either way, they are again failing in their obligation to their client. A trainer receives money from a client to impart to their expertise to the client. If a trainer does not have
expertise, they are acting as a charlatan. I have literally turned clients away who wanted to emphasize boxing skills as part of their program. Why? I have no boxing training. I can throw a decent jab, and in that case I probably could have faked it until I made it, but it’s exactly that kind of dishonesty which saps away at the reputation of trainers everywhere. That particular client ended up with a trainer who specialized in boxing, and I enjoy seeing him at the gym working with someone whom I feel better matches his needs. On the other hand, I have been sitting around at the gym and been asked by trainers to come over to their session and show their client how to squat,  bench or deadlift. In most instances the trainer would’ve been able to demonstrate the lift adequately enough for their client’s purposes, yet they recognized that the trust earned through this display of integrity, in the interest of serving their client better, was far more important than being a know-it-all.

—

Sometimes I see trainers doing things that annoy me, but I immediately have to check my rationale. For example: the trainer who looks over at the gym T.V. to check out
a few seconds of Sportscenter every time his attention is not 100% demanded by his client. Or the trainer who feels the need to expound upon every detail of their weekend, while their client sits on a machine, not having lifted a finger in the last five minutes.  Yes, I find this off-putting, but I have no say and if it doesn’t bother the client, maybe
it’s not so bad. A lot of annoying factors fall within the scope of the individual client’s preference, not professional integrity. Some clients are more laid back, others would be aggravated by the trainer’s lack of focus. I have clients with whom I’m comfortable opening up a bit about my personal life, or being looser with my language, or being a little bit less formal in general. With other clients I maintain a stricter, more professional demeanor. It all depends on the individual client/trainer dynamic. In any case, you hear many people say that they fired their last trainer for exactly these types of reasons, and most often when I see a trainer like this, I know that either the
client is fine with it, or eventually it will bite that trainer in the ass.

With that in mind, I am irked at how much more often I hear of trainers being fired for these reasons than for a complaint addressing an overall lack of substantive knowledge or integrity. The fact is, most clients simply (unfortunately) don’t know better. I would much rather have someone I care about work with a trainer who spends a few too many seconds watching Sportscenter from the corner of his eye, but actually knows what he’s doing, than with a trainer who will pay full attention while she does something incorrect, or worse, dangerous.

I love seeing great trainers at work. I especially enjoy seeing successful trainers at work who employ an entirely different skill set or style than my own. I am not a trainer hater. A trainer snob…yes. But I am an unrepentant and self-admitted one. I hold our professional duty (yes, duty) in high regard and to strict standard. I know a great many trainers who feel the same way and hold themselves to equal standards. If your trainer doesn’t, it may be time to look elsewhere.

by Mike Israetel

In our constant quest to get bigger, stronger, and better a sports, we’re always on the lookout for effective training practices. A common training practice is the use of tools similar (but not identical) to competition movements in order to improve performance. For example, athletes will run semi-ecological drills in order to improve a specific part of their game. The drills don’t look exactly like gameplay, but they improve a skill component that then improves the net playing ability of that athlete.

However, in order for a training tool to improve performance, it must meet two minimum criteria. A training tool which is to improve performance must, in the very least:

1.) Provide overload.

2.) Be a limiting factor in performance.

Let’s take a look at some examples of common mistakes in training tool selection, so as to illustrate the importance of the selection criteria listed above.

Heavy Weighted Dips and Dumbbells for Bench Pressing

When examining the training of other high-performing athletes, most of us tend to conclude that the more of their training feats we can replicate, the closer will our performances resemble theirs. And many times that’s true. If you can Squat 600 for 10 reps like Ronnie Coleman can, your legs are going to HAVE TO be pretty damn big.

However, there are exceptions to this observation.  Improving some exercise performances will do little or nothing to improve the desired competitive movement. A good first example of this phenomenon is the use of heavy dumbbell and heavy weighted dip work to try to improve bench-press performance. I’ve used some crazy dumbbell weights in the gym, and I’ve done weighted dips with the whole house, but my bench just refused to go up.  The problem is in the overload… heavy weight
training mostly improves your strength through neural mechanisms, but heavy
dips and dumbbells are so unstable that you don’t get maximal motor-unit recruitment when performing them. Essentially, you are too unstable during the exercise to exert peak forces and thus stimulate neural adaptations. Any readers that have ever dipped with 3 plates or dumbbell benched the 130’s will know what I mean about the instability.

Since the heavy dips and dumbbells don’t allow for top-end motor-unit recruitment, they are essentially functionless in a strength program. Now of course they can be done for higher reps to build the muscle size necessary for big benching, but they are of little or no use as heavy moves. So while heavy dips and dumbbell work do reflect limiting factors for benching, they don’t pass the overload filter.

Going Heavy for Bodybuilding

Big weights equal big muscles. We all know this to be true, and trust me, I would never argue against this observation.  However, this idea is often misunderstood and
abused by beginner and advanced trainers alike. There is a place in bodybuilding training to train just for strength (less than 5 reps per set, etc…), especially for fatigue management and to potentiate later hypertrophy phases (using bigger weights for higher reps grows more muscle). It is easy to get addicted to constant heavy training in the quest to add size, at the expense of further size gains.  High volumes of training (usually accomplished by moderate weights and moderate to high reps) are the best
stimuli of growth, and constantly going super heavy precludes such volumes,
thus curbing potential growth.  It’s a tough habit to get out of, since constantly hitting PRs and moving around a ton of iron strokes the ego quite effectively. The intelligent trainer must realize that in order to grow muscle, such training cannot occupy the majority of the training year, and must also realize that while PRs are critical, they are most important to the bodybuilder when they occur in the 5-15 rep range, not in the <5 range.  To tie this concept into the bigger picture, too much heavy training does provide overload, but in the wrong direction, so as to stop acting as a limiting factor in size gains.

Ladder Drills in Sport

A favorite of not-so-great strength and conditioning coaches is the agility ladder. This training tool supposedly improves the speed and reactive ability of athletes by forcing them to practice hopping, shuffling, and otherwise skipping into and out of each delineation of the ladder. With a few exceptions, agility ladders do close to nothing to improve performance in any sport, save for competitive agility-ladder (coming to the London 2012 games, I think).

The problem with the agility ladder is that it does not provide an overload, because the forces generated during the moves are too submaximal (to affect biomotor training) and too dissimilar from actual competition moves (to affect skill training).

Because ladder use is so out of place in either biomotor or skill training, not only does it not provide an overload, but it is almost never a limiting factor. When athletes can’t move laterally or have poor footwork, it’s almost always due to biomotor (strength, power, tendon, etc..) insufficiency or skill (how to actually move as described by the coach) insufficiency. Very often, what you get from the ladder is a sorting process that tells the coach which athletes are better at the ladder. And this usually obfuscates the issues, because the result is that good athletes usually do better, creating the illusion that ladder work is effective. Better athletes also tend make bigger dents in metal siding when they run into the walls of garages, but I’ve not yet heard that recommended as a training tool (emphasis on “yet”).  The ladder gets our award for worst training modality of the article, since it fails on both overload and limiting-factor
grounds.

Word to the Wise

As you design your own programs, remember to select exercises that both provide an overload and function as limiting factors to performance. Many exercises indicate good
performance capability (benching the 215’s for 9 reps, as has been done by Stan
Efferding, definitely implies the capacity for radically heavy benching), but
far fewer are able to actually improve performance. Choose wisely!

How strong is strong enough? There have been numerous attempts by sport coaches and strength and conditioning coaches to answer this age-old question in sport training.  I’ll just come out and say it; I’m very much unconvinced that “strong enough” is a meaningful concept. That is, granted a couple of caveats (to be described below), there is no such thing as being too strong for any sport.  The literature is quite clear in this implication, but it takes some deep thinking to understand just how this can be. After all, if you look around, throwers are the strongest of all track athletes, but they can’t jump as high as high-jumpers. So if you train your high-jumpers to be as strong as throwers, they’re not going to jump any higher, so goes the reasoning.

I think this reasoning is flawed, and after you’ve read this article, maybe you’ll think so too.

The multifactorial nature of sport

To be elite in any sport, an athlete cannot possess just one beneficial athropometric, biomotor, or neural quality for that sport. Rather, an elite athlete must possess multiple exceptional physical qualities to compete at the upper level. For example, an athlete with a very high proportion of fast-twitch fibers will not likely be an Olympic caliber high-jumper if he’s only 5 feet tall. Even if an athlete is both tall and predominantly fast-twitch, if he does not have the minimally optimal muscle-tendon architecture and limb ratios, it is still highly unlikely that he’ll ever be elite.  In order to be an elite athlete in the high jump, one must have a combination of height, low bodymass, high strength, fast-twitch fiber type, muscle-tendon architecture and limb ratios that is statistically quite rare. There are champions in the high jump with just one of those factors missing, but no champions will have more factors missing than present. (1-2, 6-14)

Why are throwers stronger than high-jumpers?

To reiterate, multiple factors in combination make a specific athlete optimal for their sport, and usually just one or several very similar sports, because some of the factors that make you the best at one sport likely make you uncompetitive at others. For example, the radical strength necessary to put the shot into Olympic distances requires throwers to have very large quantities of muscle and thus high bodyweights.  It is that same high bodyweight (due to the allometric relationship between bodymass and strength gains) that prevents a shot putter from being a competitive high-jumper or sprinter. (17)

The last point is an important one. It is not that shot putters are “too strong” to sprint fast or jump high, it is that they are too heavy (or have suboptimal limb ratios or tendon lengths for jumping and sprinting).  Remember that sport success is a multifactoral endeavor, and in their quest for maximum strength (which is worth the tradeoff in the shot put), throwers have negatively affected other necessary variables for elite sprinting and jumping performance.

Is it possible to be “too strong” for ANY sport?

The above discussion seems to be begging the question, that if it’s other variables that are problematic in the shot-putter example, perhaps keeping them constant would solve the problem. That is, if you were able to make a sprinter 10% stronger without sacrificing fiber type, bodyweight, or neural adaptations, would that sprinter run faster? The answer is an unequivocal yes, unless of course being strong past a certain point actually hurts your sprinting performance if everything else is equal, an argument which I have yet to see be defended on remotely scientific grounds. (1,2,15,16)

Too much strength training?

Our first caveat was that if strength increases are to benefit sport performance, they must not come at a net cost to the summation of other important variables in that sport, such as bodyweight,  fiber type and neural alterations for sprinting.  The second caveat is really just an offshoot of the first: If strength training is taking away from other sport training in such a way as to, on net balance, hurt performance, then yes, you are strength-training the athlete too much.  Now, that is a very different statement than saying an athlete is “too strong.” It’s not that the athlete is too strong, it’s that pursuing strength increases at all costs results in a decrease in performance. It’s not that the resultant athlete is too strong, it’s that his fiber type is no longer optimal, or that his musculo-tendenous unit does not have the requisite preactivity before footstrike, or that his neural adaptations are not optimized for superb limb velocity. The strength is not the problem, pursuing it at the expense of everything else is.

The role of strength development in a periodized sport-training program

So now that we know that too much strength is never the problem, but unbalanced training is sometimes the problem, how do we incorporate strength training into a sport-training program? The answer to that is Periodization, the science of sport training.  A properly periodized program for a sport (let’s say high-jump) arranges training in a sequence of specific phases, with each phase potentiating gains in the phase that follows it.  When properly sequenced, the final result of the phasic training is an improvement in high-jump results.  For example, the concurrent sport and weightroom training for a high-jump season may look something like this:

Notice that the strength training emphasis phase is only a part of the whole training process. Because each adaptation potentiates the next, replacing any of the blocks with more strength training could result in decreased performance. To be sure, all gym training that does not focus on maximal strength as the primary intended adaptation still involves some strength work, in order to preserve strength levels and allow for the maximal expression of strength-dependent qualities (such as power and speed). In essence, strength training is always a component of each phase, but takes a back burner to other biomotor adaptations during most phases of training.  That is, if maximum power expression is the goal, a strength phase must be included in every preparative period.  The strength phase is not the only component, but it is an essential one. (16)

So there is definitely such a thing as too much strength training, because too much emphasis disrupts the phasic process of periodization (thus decreasing performance indirectly) and usually takes time and recovery potential away from other important sport activities (such as skill training), decreasing performance directly (16). However, rarely do coaches commit the problem of performing too much strength training. Usually, they don’t perform enough, so it’s worthwhile to list some of the benefits of enhancing strength in a periodized sport training program. Here are some benefits of enhanced strength somewhat in order of career athletic development:

1.) In the early (beginner) stages of training an athlete, strength training actually results in larger gains in power than does power training. (5)

2.) Increases in strength directly increase power output (by increasing force production), resulting in further distances thrown and jumped and faster times ran. Strength training also raises a greater range of the force-velocity curve than does pure speed or power training, allowing the athlete to excel at a broader range of ballistic movements. (3,4)

3.) While neural changes peak relatively early in an athlete’s career, strength continues to increase for much longer, often being the driving force of top-end improvements. (18,19)

4.) Many of the abilities that are hypothesized to replace strength training for athletes that are “strong enough” are even more asymptotic than strength gains (18,19), with some of the variables (unweighted contractile speed) barely being changeable at all(18,19).  Even technique alterations are notoriously difficult to change in elite athletes, especially compared to the rather straightforward task of increasing strength.

The literature seems to indicate that instead of focusing our discussions mostly on whether we can strength train our athletes too much at the expense of other training (a valid question, of course), we may be better off looking elsewhere for priority shifts. Perhaps we should focus them instead on whether other training modalities, such as radical attempts at technique alterations, lengthy attempts to change contractile velocities, and attempted improvements in stride frequency (see this study: 15) are worth the tradeoff to basic strength, power and skill training.

Conclusion

Is there such a thing as being too strong? Probably not. Of course, there can be such a thing as focusing too much on strength training, particularly if this focus comes at the expense of other sport performance factors, either directly (too much weight gain) or indirectly (too little power/speed training).

If you still think someone can be too strong for their sport, allow me to try to sway you one last time, in my desperation, with a ridiculously unrealistic hypothetical scenario, with ridiculousness to match the absurdity of the notion that there is such a thing as being too strong for a sport.

The scenario is this: you are a sprinter, and a genie pops up (played by Robin Williams of course) and offers you a wish. The wish is constrained, however, and goes something like this; if you accept, your lower body strength is multiplied by a factor of ten.  Granted that this is no evil genie, and that your bones and tendons will be modified to be able to express the strength, would you turn him down? If you answered no, enjoy your world-record race times. If you answered yes, why?

References:

1. Bret, C, Rahmani, A, Dufour, AB, Messonnier, L, and Lacour, JR. Leg Strength and Stiffness as Ability Factors in 100 M Sprint Running. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2002;42(3):274-81.

2. Cardinale, M, and Stone, MH. Is Testosterone Influencing Explosive Performance? J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20(1):103-7.

3. Cormie, P, Mccaulley, GO, and Mcbride, JM. Power Versus Strength-Power Jump Squat Training: Influence on the Load-Power Relationship. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(6):996-1003.

4. Cormie, P, Mcguigan, MR, and Newton, RU. Adaptations in Athletic Performance after Ballistic Power Versus Strength Training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(8):1582-98.

5. Cormie, P, Mcguigan, MR, and Newton, RU. Influence of Strength on Magnitude and Mechanisms of Adaptation to Power Training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(8):1566-81.

6. Crewther, BT, Cook, C, Cardinale, M, Weatherby, RP, and Lowe, T. Two Emerging Concepts for Elite Athletes: The Short-Term Effects of Testosterone and Cortisol on the Neuromuscular System and the Dose-Response Training Role of These Endogenous Hormones. Sports Med. 2011;41(2):103-23.

7. Harrison, AJ, Keane, SP, and Coglan, J. Force-Velocity Relationship and Stretch-Shortening Cycle Function in Sprint and Endurance Athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(3):473-9.

8. Hennessy, L, and Kilty, J. Relationship of the Stretch-Shortening Cycle to Sprint Performance in Trained Female Athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2001;15(3):326-31.

9. Hollings, SC, and Robson, GJ. Body Build and Performance Characteristics of Male Adolescent Track and Field Athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1991;31(2):178-82.

10. Ichinose, Y, Kanehisa, H, Ito, M, Kawakami, Y, and Fukunaga, T. Relationship between Muscle Fiber Pennation and Force Generation Capability in Olympic Athletes. Int J Sports Med. 1998;19(8):541-6.

11. Kubo, K, Kanehisa, H, Kawakami, Y, and Fukunaga, T. Elasticity of Tendon Structures of the Lower Limbs in Sprinters. Acta Physiol Scand. 2000;168(2):327-35.

12. Kumagai, K, Abe, T, Brechue, WF, Ryushi, T, Takano, S, and Mizuno, M. Sprint Performance Is Related to Muscle Fascicle Length in Male 100-M Sprinters. J Appl Physiol. 2000;88(3):811-6.

13. Rahmani, A, Locatelli, E, and Lacour, JR. Differences in Morphology and Force/Velocity Relationship between Senegalese and Italian Sprinters. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004;91(4):399-405.

14. Stafilidis, S, and Arampatzis, A. Muscle – Tendon Unit Mechanical and Morphological Properties and Sprint Performance. J Sports Sci. 2007;25(9):1035-46.

15. Weyand, PG, Sternlight, DB, Bellizzi, MJ, and Wright, S. Faster Top Running Speeds Are Achieved with Greater Ground Forces Not More Rapid Leg Movements. J Appl Physiol. 2000;89(5):1991-9.

16. Cormie, P, McGuigan, MR, & Newton, RU. (2011). Developming maximal neuromuscular power. Sports Medicine, 41(1), 17-38.

17. Muscle strength testing: use of normalisation for body size. (2002). Sports Medicine, 32(10), 615-31.

18.) Pierce, K.C., Brewer C., Ramsey M.W., Byrd R. Sands W.A. Stone M.E. and Stone M.H.          Youth resistance Training.  United Kingdom Strength and Conditioning Association         Journal . No. 10, Summer, 9-23  2008.

19.) Sale, D. G. Strength training in children. Perspectives.in Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, vol 2. Youth exercise and sport,Indianapolis, Benchmarck, 165-222, 1989.

With all the effort that goes into planning a training protocol and setting yourself to achieving a goal, with all the mental, spiritual and logistical planning that it entails, nothing is worse than having it all changed by an injury which sidetracks everything. Not only does it create delay in progress, injuries add up and over time and with neough severity, than can cut short the hopes of many a potentially talented athlete. There are many types of obstacles that can get in the way of making progress but any one of them is desirable over getting hurt. Compared to the classic time constraints, motivational issues and financial hardships which can take people out of their routines, inuries are far worse because they not only strip you of the ability to train, they strip you of your quality of life outside the gym.

The sad fact of the matter is that they are also a part of virtually any physical activity you can seriously engage in. Certainly some activities make you more prone to them in varying degrees than others (like in the case of a pro football player), but high level dancers and golfers have potential injuries related to their professions as well, injuries that must be anticipated and dealt with when they arise. This is not to say injuries are an absolute inevitability, nor is it to say that in the case they do occur that it must be of such a severe nature as to require significant time away from training and cause a major shift in one’s quality of life. With a few common sense guidlines, the occurance of injuries can be broadly reduced. More careful observation of the individual trainee can minimize them as much as possible.

Here are some rules to follow:

Always maintain the same form, from warm ups sets to working sets.

The biggest mistake I see people in the gym making is that as the weight gets heavier, their form accomodates itself to allow for the lifting of heavier weight. The butt coming up off the bench, or the bar coming down further away from the chest in bench press, the classic cheat curls, squats above parallel, etc. With any lift, the form should NOT change from the very lightest warm ups to the most grueling working sets. These negative changes can be the result of muscular imbalances, poor motor memory, or simply working with weights that are too heavy. Whatever the reason, it is always indicitive of a problem that could lead to potential injury and should be corrected before the lift is integrated as full part of a training program.

Train to prevent injury.

No one should engage in weight training of any kind without first understanding the need to properly strengthen the supporting structures involved in the areas they are working and how to maintain health of the tendons and joints in play. Rotator cuff work, scapular, rhomboid and rear delt work, ITB maintenance, stretching, foam rolling and proper rest are all integral to staying healthy. This is where the trainee is forced to leave his ego at the door. It’s hard sometimes to put down the plates and reach for the foam cylinder or the 5lb dumbell or the stretch bands to take care of these little things. Especially to a new lifter it can feel like a waste of time. But when it comes to staying healthy and making progress, the devil is in the details.

Train opposing muscle groups.

No join in the human body acts in only one direction, yet because during the course of weight training, we are usually focusing on one direction of the action of the joint more than the other. With the adaptations that result in focusing a great deal on, say, your bench press, and without opposing stimulus to the inverse actions, the adaptation can progress to a point where danger exists to the affected joints, especially the shoulder. For another example, a person who trains their abs 8 days a week but never so much as looks at a glute-ham raise or a squat will inevitably suffer back and knee problems caused by the dual effect of tightness in the quads and hip flexors and the atrophy of the glutes and lower back.

Prevent this by looking honestly at your protocol and making sure that the volume of work for opposing muscle groups is in balance. Once again, this involves the ego. Yes, it’s cool to have a big bench and, yes, no one at your cousin’s picnic really cares how much you care barbell row, but torn rotator cuffs are not cool either.

Train smart.

There are many methods and lifting styles which will result in the trainee becoming fitter and stronger. As long as a well formulated program is applied, progress should be expected. However many times this has been said in however many ways, 9 out of 10 people in the gym simply hope to walk into the gym and do the exact same sets and reps or the exact same sets of intervals on the treadmill every single time and still make progress. For the lifter it usually it goes something like this:

1 set of 12 reps to failure

add more weight

1 set of 8 reps to failure

add more weight

1 set of 4 reps to failure

add more weight

1 set of 1-2 to failure

This training scheme is indicative that someone has put very little thought into what they are doing. Apart from being ineffective for any kind of gains in the long term, it’s a recipe for disaster in terms of elevated risk of injury.

Use a spotter

Ok, so this one is a bit of a no-brainer, but it must be said. Moving on.

Don’t be a hero

Don’t train through pain. Period. Hardship and soreness, ok. Actual injurious pain, never. Working AROUND injuries is fine as long as you know what you’re doing, but pressing on when your body is telling you to stop is a mistake. Heros who train through injuries end up more badly injured and don’t make and progress at all. Don’t be that person.

Never miss a rep in the gym

A properly designed training protocol should have you working hard and approaching, but never quite reaching, failure. A missed lift attempt or a shortfall in time or distance every once in a while is one thing, but if you are missing reps or goals in training consistently, some part of your program is not designed well for your capabilities and needs to be adjusted. Injuries occur most often when the exercise is too strenuous or the weight is too heavy, and by avoiding these situations you can avoid 90% of potential training injuries. Finding the line between not pushing yourself hard enough and overdoing it can be tough, but the payoff is the fastest and safest possible progress.

Bonus question: Which way does gravity point? If you answered “in the opposite direction of my dumbbell movements,” you need more time to think.  Holding a dumbbell out in front of you while rotating side to side does NOT tax the abdominals, because gravity does not point laterally. What it does tax is your anterior deltoids, because gravity is pulling the weight DOWN.  On that note, movements of torso rotation on a machine don’t work the abs (or hardly the obliques) either.  They work the multifidus and rotatores, small internal, perispinal muscles. So keep dieting for summer while doing rotation work “bro,” cause you’ll need to be REALLY lean for anyone to see your rotatores. (On a serious note, if you can see someone’s rotators, please call 911 immediately.)

When you swing or bounce during what is supposed to be a controlled movement, you accomplish two things. The first is an increased probability of injury.  The second is the use of musculature that you’re not targeting that day, increasing the likelihood of unnecessary fatigue accumulation, detracting from your medium-term gains.  And the advantages of swinging the bar during curls and lifting your ass up during benching?
Well, you get to high-five your bros after you curl more than that guy in the corner with arms twice your size.

In featuring exercises here on the site and talking about them we need to start with the most basic ones first. Squat, for reasons I touched on in the article, came first almost by sheer neccessity due to the fundamental nature of the mechanics involved. Most seasoned athletes, personal trainers and strength coaches will agree on this, and although different variations may be preferred, the same fundamental dynamics will apply.

In the realm of the upper body, however, we have a great deal more complexity in terms of small joints with great degrees of articulation, great numbers of muscles, ligaments and tendons acting together resulting in a much wider range of possible movements. The issue is much more complex and therefore debate rages as to what is the most fundamental upper body lift.

The bench press is often thought of (improperly) as the most basic archetype of all weight training, period, upper and lower body. Anyone who lifts weights or works out will be asked at some point by someone the inevitable question “How much ya bench?” In most people’s association, the bench press goes right along with protein shakes, dumbell curls and cardio in most people’s image of what happens in a gym. However, and perhaps because of this, it is also a fairly controversial lift. In part because of it’s ubiquitous nature, and it’s standing in the mind of the average person as the be-all, end-all gauge of overall sports aptitude, there has been a major backlash in recent years to this important lift. Perception exists in some circles that it will almost always lead to injury and has little bearing on athletic performance, and because of this, it’s basic neccessity as a biomechanical pattern for strength is even called into question at times.

Like all such matters, there are points to be had on all sides and so the issue must be looked at with a lens of reason.

Bench press, like squat, represents one of the most fundamental human movements there is: the push. Muscles of the upper body evolved together in such a way as to coordinate and generate force for moving an object away or to throw it a distance. The fact that training this motor pathway is an absolute neccessity cannot be debated against reasonably. Olympic caliber shotputters and throwers, NFL linemen and mixed martial artists use this lift in their training, even if the goal is not an increase in their absolute 1 repetition max.

Bear in mind however that because of the highly complex design of the shoulder joint, there is potential for injury if this lift is performed improperly, a fact which unfortunately exists for most exercises. Compounded by an unprecedented amount of ego-driven, poorly trained lifters doing things which endanger them in the short and long term, stories of serious structural injury as a result of bench pressing are all too common. But it doesn’t have to be this way if common sense is applied. Check out the upcoming article for the “Rules for training without injury” to see some ways to keep this lift as a safe and effective weapon in your training arsenal, and Mike’s killer article about making this lift stronger.

— Victor Preuninger

—by Mike Israetel

I’m going to skip the blabbing intro and just get right down to business. You want your bench to go up, so here are some tips. The tips are in order of most immediate results to
most delayed results. Once you have put the immediate changes into place, you
can move on to more long-term bench improvement modalities.

Technique Enhancements

There are several techniques that essentially all of the best bench pressers employ. Although changing bench technique is probably the fastest way to see results, it may not be immediate in the technical sense, because most of these techniques require at least a couple of workouts to get used to. However, measured against the alternative of waiting months for bench improvement (or never seeing it at all), the 2-3 weeks technique adjustments take to increase your bench max are quite worth the wait.  There are three basic technique adjustments which will increase your bench, and once you have mastered them you will always need to stay vigilant and make sure you’re still optimizing their implementation, BUT this is generally a one-time fix, whereas the rest of the bench press tips are gifts that keep on giving.

Tip 1: Arch your back.

Reasoning: By arching your back, you raise up your chest, thus decreasing the distance travelled by the barbell. This decreased distance allows more weight to be lifted. Furthermore, an arched back allows the sternal pectorals to be utilized more in the pressing movement, and, being bigger and stronger than the clavicular pectorals, they can lift more weight. Essentially, arching your back turns the flat bench into more of a decline bench, which is obviously easier!

Tip 2: Retract your shoulder blades.

Reasoning: By retracting your scapulae, you further reduce the distance travelled by the barbell. Not only this, but retracting the shoulders makes the movement safer, which allows you to push harder without fear of injury.

Tip 3: Touch to your nipple
line, and then press up and BACK.

Reasoning: By touching on your nipple line, you are beginning the pressing motion at the closest point to lockout, resulting in the shortest stroke possible. However, the length of the resultant lever arm created by your upper arm with respect to your shoulder joint is maximized here, resulting in higher necessary forces to press the bar up. Thus, as soon as the nipple line is touched, the bar should be pushed up and back towards the neck to minimize the force necessary to complete the lift, allowing more weight to be placed on the bar. Touching lower than the nipple line can shorten the range of motion, but disadvantages the lever arm so much that it’s usually not worth it. Just as well, touching too high (mid-pec for example) is a leverage advantage, but increases the range of motion too much, and results in a lower max.

To be sure, there are more advanced technique alterations that can be employed (bar placement, humeral angle, leg drive, etc…). However, they are less impactful in their ability to increase your 1-RM in the bench, and are generally reserved for incorporation by more advanced lifters. Not only this, but their incorporation is usually more individually-dependent, and is best suited for a coach to teach in person, rather than via a column on a website!

Proper Short-Term Periodization

If you want to bench big, you have to make sure you’re actually training, at least in the short term, for a big bench.  It amazes me (mostly because I used to make this mistake myself) how many people violate the basic training principles when training to get a bigger bench. If you want to bench big within the next 1-2 months, it’s probably a good idea to follow some of the following tips on short-term Periodization:

Tip 1: Bench!

Reasoning: The principle of specificity states that if you generally want to optimize your performance at any one movement, you had better train that movement. And this principle operates under the constraint of recency; that is, if you have not benched recently, your neuromuscular adaptations to the movement will be sub-optimal, even if your other lifts are all up. The take-home message is this; if you want to bench big in the next several weeks, you had better make the flat bench a regular part of your program for the time being.

Tip 2: Train heavy.

Reasoning: Assuming that you want to bench a lot for just one repetition, the principle of specificity states that you must train in the low repetition range. Now, this does not mean
that you have to train only singles for 2 months before you max-out, but it does mean that heavy, low rep benching must be a part of your training plan if maximum benching numbers are your goal. Training heavy trains both your muscular and nervous system to lift heavy, plain and simple. If you can do 225 for 15 reps but have not touched a weight heavier in months, your max on any given attempt will be much lower than if you handled 275+ for low reps consistently leading up to the attempt.

Tip 3: Manage fatigue.

Reasoning: Every training session stimulates positive adaptation in muscle growth and strength gains. However, it also generates a considerable amount of fatigue, not all of which subsides by the time your next training session is performed. Thus as you go
from session to session, fatigue levels add up. This inevitable product of the training process is called cumulative fatigue, and it can mask your fitness adaptations from revealing themselves on your max-out day. In order to reveal all of the positive adaptations you have made and hit a big personal record (PR) in the bench, it is wise to let the accumulated fatigue from your training dissipate before your max-out attempts begin.  A good rule of thumb to use for fatigue dissipation (there are literally books on this highly complex matter) is to cut your volume (sets x reps x weight) in half on your second to last training session, without cutting your workout weights by more than 90%, which means that most of the cuts are made in either reps or sets. Then on your last workout before the max attempts, you cut your working weights down by 50% from the last time, resulting in a total volume reduction of about 75% from normal training.  This method, which can take
between 1 and 3 weeks, allows you to reduce your fatigue levels while sacrificing only a minimal level of fitness, and can allow for maximum numbers to be lifted when you are attempting them.

Hit PRs on Assistance Movements

So now you’ve mastered your technique and have begun to periodize properly in the short term in order to guarantee maximum strength expression when you want it. Now that this process has been mastered, what do you do? You can only milk the gains off of a basic
pre-competition program for so long until you’re stuck all over again.

At this point, the solution is to get away from specificity (benching) and utilize the
principle of variation.  This principle states that maximum adaptations are made to novel stimuli, not those that your body is accustomed to.  Utilizing variation means trying to get stronger on a variety of lifts which utilize some of the same muscles that bench pressing does. Benching utilizes, in the following order of importance, your chest, triceps and front delts.  Making those muscles bigger and stronger is the goal of variation training.  Once you have bigger and stronger chest, triceps and shoulder musculature, you can re-train these muscles to synchronize their efforts to perform the bench press once again, with guaranteed results. But which muscles do you train first and how do you train them?

On the subject of which muscles to target, there are several schools of thought. The first line of reasoning is that the muscles that are lagging the most usually come up the fastest and are thus most productive to train. Thus, if you’re benching 400 and want to bench
450, and everyone you know that has benched 450 can also dumbbell flye the 90’s for reps and you can only do the 70’s, then it’s time to get flying!

The second line of reasoning is that muscles lag most often because they are genetically weak, so wasting your time trying to add 5lbs to your dumbbell flye reps may be a bad idea if you can make radical gains on your already strong triceps, thus powering your bench up
that much faster. There is some truth to this perspective, but it does not mean you ONLY train your strong points, just that you MOSTLY do.

The third school of thought on this subject is that all muscles need their fair share of training, and if you want to bench big then you have to train your chest, triceps, and shoulders equally. In the short term, you may get away with training just your strong
points, and in the long term, you may benefit from really focusing on your weaknesses at the expense of your strong points. However, a more reasonable approach, and one to which I must say I am biased, is to train ALL of the pushing muscles for a big bench. Of course you can’t train them all hard all the time, so you must go through priority phases, but the point still holds; you want a bigger bench? Get bigger and stronger pecs, triceps, and shoulders.

As to the question of exercise selection and training philosophy with regard to training those muscles, nothing works better than the basics. Want stronger triceps? Do close grip benches, dips, skulls, and overhead extensions. Want big, strong pecs? Do flyes, flyes, and more flyes. Want stronger delts? Overhead press. And how do you know your efforts are worthwhile? If you are hitting weight and rep PRs on the basic movements, chances are you’re getting stronger!

Gain Weight

The process of scientific training can yield increases in strength for years.  Quite literally,
people get stronger in the same weightclass well into their 40’s.  However, I would be lying by omission if I didn’t include perhaps the most powerful long-term bench improvement modality: WEIGHT GAIN! Alternatively known as the “Pfaendtner Method,” gaining weight will increase your max bench. It will probably increase your squat and maybe
increase your deadlift, but adding sheer size will ALWAYS increase your max bench. And because being jacked up and in charge is just as cool as having a big bench, why not get two for the price of one and go for the size?  Use the tips above, get huge, and
your bench will be sure to increase. Enjoy!

by Victor Preuninger

If you’ve been around the strength/fitness world long enough you start to know how it goes. Every few weeks or months, we hear the word NEW. Sometimes it’s in reference to a new diet, exercise, or piece of equipment, other times it’s an entirely new methodology or approach to a familiar goal. Differentiating itself with subtle changes or broad reinvention. Invariably, different factions emerge in the wake of it’s arrival. First there are those who say: “This thing is better than all those other things that we used to do, and all that stuff that you guys are doing with those things isn’t working as well as the stuff we are now doing with this thing.” Furiously, the opposing camp retorts: “The stuff you are doing with that thing is nowhere near as effective as the stuff we have been doing for years with this thing!” Not to be left out, we still have those who say “We found this thing that no one even uses anymore, and people used to do stuff with it that was better and more effective than any of the stuff that people are doing things with now, and don’t even get us started on that new thing that they say is better to do stuff with than the stuff those other people are already doing!!”

Does reading that make your head want to spin?

For someone new to fitness, trying to gather information from the rhetorical morass of those kinds of debates will often have the same effect. How can anyone hope to make an informed decision when the people out there who are supposed to have the information can’t even agree on the basics, let alone the fine points? When you get right down to it, no one really has all the answers. Although, some of us are more informed than others, and yes, some methods are more effective than others, merit can be found in a myriad of training styles and approaches. So does that mean a scattered approach is best, one that takes a little bit from here and a little bit from there all the time?

Yes and no.

An eclectic base of knowledge is a good thing for an advanced trainee, one who has been around long enough to know the good from the bad, and to know what works for them from this method and what doesn’t work for them from that method. To a beginner who approaches it this way, there is an inevitable lack of focus that will become a huge impediment to advancement. Ideas will not be selected and combined to form a cohesive whole, rather they will conflict with each other, compete with each another and eventually cancel each other out. The good elements of a particular method will be overlooked, the advanced elements done improperly, the less effective elements overutilized and overemphasized, the basics often completely overlooked. At best, this trainee will become mediocre-to-bad at many things, and never good at any thing. The likelihood of them successfully attaining the goal they set out to reach is slim.

Therefore, the beginner must start by choosing a method, a tool, so to speak. They must choose wisely and stick with it, working hard to become proficient with their choice before putting it down for a different one. So how does one make the best choice at the outset? Inform the decision by looking at what people have accomplished with that particular method. Look for those who most closely match your ideal and your own mentality and start there by finding out what they do.

Once you’ve made your decision, remember that whatever tool you’ve chosen, it is only as effective as the hand that wields it. You can employ all of the latest methods and techniques, all of the most modern ideas, but if you  don’t put in a simliar amount of effort as those who’ve found success, you will fall short of their results.

If you eventually outgrow that tool, and most likely you will, you will make your next choice informed with the skills and knowledge you have gained through practice beforehand. This is the beginning of an advanced base of knowledge, the first step in developing effective, well-rounded training protocols.