Kim wood was the first pro full time coach in pro sport, coached the Bengal starting 1974.
His concept was getting the most out of every rep and making every set count toward overall progression in building strength, it was simple, unadorned training.
*
Markos, thought you might enjoy the read….it’s long but good.
Taken off another forum some time ago.
*
I always do tend to go with higher reps...Definitely higher reps for the
lower body (20-30 or much higher), and with the basic upper body high intensity program I usually go with a 15-20 "guide figure"
*
The object of the game;
when it comes to the set- it’s to stimulate a maximum number of muscle
fibers ... I think high reps do that, they're tough, maybe too tough for most trainees, but you're only doing one set so everything's all out.
*
I feel many have gone with lower guide figures because of social pressure and it's easier.
*
if you are going to start doing "high reps" do high reps...keep it simple- you've got a lot of things to adjust to here, do your squats with a guide figure of 20~30...pay strict attention to your form…like, really strict, start with light, easy to do right loads, throw ego out the window.
*
When your form starts to break down then you are done, training to failure here means training to a point where no more reps can be done in a strict fashion same goes with dead-lifts and 10reps aren’t high reps, probably best to use dumb-bells with high rep dead-lifts.
When you start something like high reps stick with it for 6 weeks or more give it a shot, don’t go mental and start adding all kinds of cute things to it then come back later and say, "I tried that...and it wasn't for me"
*
Generally I recommend training three times a week with weights... 5-10 exercises per work-out everything all-out.
*
Higher reps can provide high intensity work involving much lower forces.
*
I follow the "rep speed" that Arthur taught me “smooth, steady...move the weight at a constant speed... lift the weight...don't throw the weight”.
*
*
*
*
*
If you are giving maximum effort in your set it's hard enough to count how many reps you are doing much less counting for rep speed.
*
Channel your energy into effort not counting.
A great off-the track story on counting reps: my buddy, Ron Pritchard told me this one: When Ronnie was at Arizona State Jon Cole was the strength coach there...at the time Cole was one of the strongest men in the world.
There wasn't a whole bunch of coaching but there was a lot of lifting.
*
Cole would just work-out when the football team did.
*
Cole would do un-Godly weights when he lifted, one time he's got it set up to do dips with four or five hundred pounds attached to a belt around his waist, he then makes a big deal by calling out that he wants somebody to come and count his reps...Well, everything in the room stops and everybody's attention is glued on Cole they're all thinking; "Reps! Wow!"......
*
Then he does one rep! (Of course, every- body knew who was the bull-of-the-woods)
*
In reference to the fellow asking about "single joint" vs. "compound exercises"
and high reps: just do the reps... It doesn't matter...the reality is in "doing it"...not introducing inhibiting mental factors.
*
Not sure exactly what Ken Liestner picked up from me (it was a while back) but I'll tell you this: if you've ever had a "bad back" last thing you want to do is "arch your back"... yet that's how modern squatting is done... arching the back and driving with your legs (modern bench pressing deals with the same forces...legs driving against an arched back)...interesting.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Also, if you've ever gotten a bad head-ache from squatting chances are you've "arched" your neck.
The coaching point is usually: "keep head back...train your eyes on a point high on the wall"...of course when you do that a sort of "venturi" valve in your spinal cord closes and pressure is built up...but, if you bend your neck forward you got another problem because you might lose your balance... Wow!
*
The King of Exercises to say nothing of the spinal compression and maybe slipping on the dog dish like famous idiot, George Elder (private joke for Matt Brytski))... so, if you are going to do the squat, and for many(at least some) it is a great exercise...most of the time.
*
I recommend that you use loads that can allow you to do 25-50 reps going almost to failure, or to that point where your form really starts to break down big time.
*
Form description for squat is based on how a trainee is built…long torso/short legs...short torso/long legs and other factors...lots of other factors.
*
(Kim Wood refers to Dr Kens 20 rep squat video)
Dr. Ken is a lifelong weight-man, in the video he knows what he can do ...and even then he's a risk taker extraordinaire and a world class mofo as far as toughness...enjoy the video.
Only try to do it if you know what you're doing....also be aware of this...I did squat...probably would do 'em again...but I have only rarely let people I've coached do squats too many factors involved.
*
I'll "talk" squatting (like I did with Ken)...but I never recommend doing it.
*
Find other ways to work those muscles...look for better and safer ways.
*
Relative to the squat: we could talk for hours and hours on the exercise and it would be great fun but that's far beyond the scope of this forum.
*
*
*
*
The context here is more "what to do" and my perspective is going to be that of a coach and teacher with all the responsibilities that that implies, the squat is a very complex exercise.
*
For some it is a good even great exercise but it is probably not for everyone.
*
There may be no "right" form to do the squat with heavy weights when you consider all the forces.
Isn't it interesting that most "good squatters" are built alike, certain body mechanics lend to good squatting.
*
Other builds and body proportions may lead to real trouble.
*
Being a coach in professional football for almost thirty years I saw a lot of guys with damaged lower backs from doing squats.
*
Was it their form?
Was it the weight?
Was it their body proportions?
Was it how they were coached?
Was it the exercise itself?
*
All I know is that they were "touched-up” and that wasn't good for them playing the game of football.
The muscle structures used in squatting can be developed in other and far safer ways... that's the path I chose to travel as a coach no risks in the weight room on my watch.
*
I opted-out for reasons of safety.
*
BUT I'm still fascinated by the exercise and still a "student" of squatting.
*
I read about it...I watch tapes...I even watch people do squats in gyms...and B-F,
*
I'm sure we could talk about the subject for days.("venturi" valve you gotta look up)
*
*
*
*
*
As a coach I found variations of the squat of great value... high rep squatting with light weights(and "breathing squats")...modified free-hand "hindu squats"(modified from traditional "hindu squats"(Karl Gotch) in that the knee stays in the same place...never goes "over the toe"...ass kicked way back...no patella tendon problems) for high reps.
*
*
Certain "squat machines"(Gary Jones and I developed an awesome machine for Hammer Strength called the "H-Squat" I still have one...it's ten feet tall...but lessens the compression of the spine and reduces the "shearing" forces on the knees the bio-mechanics of the machine are very special.
*
Gary hit a homer on this one... but it's so damn big and very few are out there now and even certain "squat-like" exercises like high rep dumb-bell dead-lifts...
*
Squats are great...but know what you are doing and that ain't easy and be very very careful when you coach others as they are the ones going under the bar.
As I've tried to articulate, the squat is some kind of an enigma because
"good form" is not a given, even when you think you are doing it right.
*
I believe that reducing the loads and therefore the forces is the way to go and that sort of means high reps, which fits in an interesting way with Arthur's theories on "neurological efficiency" and "metabolic conditioning".
*
The squat-in its many forms is intriguing because in doing it you are stimulating a great amount of the body's muscular mass at one time...to say nothing of what those muscular structures are relative to maintaining an upright posture and their importance relative to mobility...
*
*
*
*
The best "leg press" I've ever seen was the Hammer Strength leg press designed by Gary Jones...the back pads were made out of "temper foam" and molded to the contours of your back the bio-mechanics of the pressing movement were "right on".
*
Tyler Hobson's machines are very interesting ...some models are very good.
*
Stiffies are another exercise where you might not want to have "good form"
...good exercise with light weights for reps but always keep knees bent a
smidge... greatest dead-lifter (not silly sumo style) I've ever seen other than a couple of midgets and that deformed spine Gant fella and Vince Anello with his hands down by his knees... was my brother.
*
For years his routine was simple: smoke a cigarette... do two one-armed chins with each arm (that's two reps with each arm)... smoke another cigarette then do 70-90 dead-lifts with body-weight.
That's straight through...not stopping he'd weigh between 165 and 175 then finish with another cigarette before he did his road-work.
I'd rather have deads done with dumb-bells...a center of mass thing rather than the weight out front...always a little bend in the knees...minimum 20 reps probably stopping just short of failure.
Training is far more an "art" rather than a "science".
*
From what you say about your training you seem to be very experienced.
*
YOU are the best judge of what you should do and you are the one responsible in the J.P.Sartre sense.*
*
Based on your experience I'm sure you can find other ways to work your lower body...
*
*
*
One of the key questions though should always be "what am I training for?”
*
If you're training for strength and development in a general sense then pick the exercises that work best and are the safest thinking about it that way you are not then mentally "locked" into lifts like the squat, you can work the muscular structures involved in squatting, the major structures of the lower back and lower body in other ways.*
*
One of the key things in your approach to your training should be to ask your-self basic questions continually.
*
One of those questions might be "why squat...when I can get things done in other ways?"
*
Also, next time you are sitting there throbbing with your heart racing for five minutes after a hard set of squats like you described-you might want to ask your-self "why am I doing this?" or, "is it OK for me that I'm doing this?"*
*
I sure don't know the answers for any of this but I know your training should be guided by questions and there should be real reasons for why you do what you do and not just they say ya gotta do it.
*
*
The Buddha says "if you want to leave the room...try the door" ...he doesn't say "...the new and exciting door".
*
A true study of what is called "HIT" is a study of the basics...basic things that no matter how advanced you become you gotta come back to 'em...to some that's exciting.
*
I remember Arthur Jones being criticized for "hard-selling the basics"(he just laughed))...
*
*
*
*
It seems(for most exercises) that in the contracted position of an exercise especially "one-joint exercises,* all of the muscle fibers of the structures being used in that rep are being used when the muscle structures are "contracted"... so, if that's true(and it seems to be true, but I ain't gonna go into it here) it follows that one could focus on short ranges of motion near the position of contraction and focus big time on the position of contraction and develop a high degree of muscular mass.*
*
But more goes into complete muscular development than just muscular mass.
*
If you are training athletes to move and do things it is certainly best to see that "muscular development" involves the whole muscle/joint/nervous system unit and that must be attended to in training.
Arthur Jones was fascinated with the concept of "function dictates design" ...in many of his machines he was concerned with training the whole muscle; from the position where it is at its longest through the range of its motion contraction of the muscle...and motion of the structure it is connected to, to the position where it is at its shortest.
*
He was also concerned with how a muscle contracts (and the potential strength changes as it contracted) and the changes in mechanical efficiency and leverage as the contracting muscles moved the limbs they are attached to...hence, the cam... the quest was to work the whole muscle...and to work it completely and efficiently.
*
Yes, he did "beat the drum" and promote his equipment and his ideas but in reality his work was a grand experiment in problem solving...and a very sincere one.
*
One of the things you can gain with years of training (and not everyone gains it)
is probably best described as "wisdom"..."training wisdom".
*
Arthur Jones always believed that real knowledge could be achieved only by a trial and error process... but the thing is: you've got to survive the errors!
*
*
*
*
Most people do squats because they think they have to do 'em...other people say ya gotta do 'em so you do 'em...and plus Squats are the "King of Exercises", everybody knows that.
*
I think ya gotta ask questions first.
*
Lots of questions.
*
Of course, if you are pretty much dumb at first and you don't know what to ask, then you gotta ask 'em later...but you can also stay dumb.
What is the effect on body tissues of a heavy barbell placed across the neck and shoulder area when you do the squat?
And I am not talking about the muscles that are contracting...the ones we are trying to "work"
*
My statement "acted as sort of a venturi valve" which has caused such a stir refers to the forces built up in the spinal cord structures; remember the brain is at the end of and is part of the spinal cord...look it up and there is what amounts to a tube inside the cord with spinal fluid in it with the neck radically arched backward and a heavy weight resting and exerting mucho force and the legs "driving" maybe pinching-off the tube?
Across the neck and shoulder area.
I know of a famous lifter and strength personality you'd all know his name especially on this thread* who bought a "strongman's yoke" device
...you know the piece of equipment... you load heavy weights on it and you
drive your legs and stand up under a big steel yoke (diameter of maybe 4-6 inches)and with it across your shoulders you can do a "strongman's walk" (like Steve Justa)...well, this experienced squatter(big weights/big reps) tried out his new toy just once...and slumped to the ground... numb all over...big diameter yoke in combination with mucho force(the weights...and powerful legs) "flashed" him(not fun). He sold the yoke that day.
*
*
*
So, what we got is... we are exerting big forces with our legs and lower back to move a heavy weight on our neck and shoulders BUT in between those powerful legs and the weight is a whole bunch of all kinds of tissue that's got to deal with all these forces... ever think of it that way?
Yes, it takes some thinking to find the best way.
*
Learn to think about what you are doing and really understanding it rather than just following what somebody else says...
*
I was always confused on the issue of breathing when doing squats and other exercises. I'd heard all sorts of things from different experienced weight training people... and some of it contradicted what others said was correct.
*
I think Arthur's explanation was the best I heard.
He said "breathe... but breathe as un-selfconsciously as possible...and what-ever you do, don't hold your breath."
*
Is "negative" training good?
*
Yes, it is...its great....but it's not totally practical in most situations...especially "team" situations (who's going to lift the huge weights up for the trainees to lower?).
*
Using negative training you get very strong very quickly...of course, you get really sore too.
But there are many exercises that adapt well...negative chins and dips are two (add extra weight to your body...step up to contracted position...lower yourself (and the weight) down on a slow count).
So, they CAN be integrated into most routines...but it takes some thinking. And some understanding.
Do I "recommend" 'em. Nope, I don't "recommend" anything...what you gotta
do is figure things out for yourself and "understand" them be a real student of it not just another empty soul looking for somebody to follow.
All you need to know is right there... sharpen up...sort it out.
*
*
*
*
*
Who knows why people believe what they believe... and frankly, who cares.
The trick is to not worry about it... focus on your own situation... use your brain the best you can and as work hard AND as smart as you can.
*
If you've found something that works...stick with it.
Strength training which should be something very simple and very personal has become a "dog & pony act".
In most places...something for suckers and "marks" to buy into.
*
This forum could become something special...rarely are some of the top people in all of strength training so accessible.
*
Stupid posts and naive questions will kill all real dialogue here...
*
This "pre-workout aggression" stuff is really really stupid...one of the greater
meanings of training is to learn how to get the most out of your self... and that's a function (or at least it should be) of things like focus and mental concentration and "digging down"... things related to awareness and being mentally in touch with your physical self.
*
To get yourself gakked-up on various forms of speed or "trance music"(or anything else) really misses the point.
*
If you don't have the ability to face "internal inhibitors" in a real and natural way...if you aren't able to find "motivation" inside your self then you are missing the true essence of training.
*
If you have to use "music as a drug" or a "drug as a drug" to get "fired-up" or you think you gotta become a "zombie" to get the most out of your training you ain't gonna get it done anyway... (and I like music too)
*
"Aggression" and "anger" are not a necessary part of training (certainly they might be a part of some peoples' training) and they are not a desirable part of anybody's training.
*
*
*
"Grace under pressure" should be the meaningful concept here along with "running on one's own gas..." One of the deeper meanings of training is to find the energy to "do it" INSIDE oneself and not rely on others or anything else.
*
Maximum effort need not be "aggression" ... cut the silly crap and just do it.
...and, yes, Howard your post is stupid... but don't get upset with me, stand back from it...take some time and figure out why I would say that.
Training isn't difficult (many make it more than it is)...if you need to get "goosed-up" to train...forget it.
*
Take up golf.*
*
Training is about digging down and challenging yourself and facing up to that challenge,* it has very little to do with anger, aggression, psycho-drama or histrionics or reading favorite passages of philosophy.
*
I know the ads in the muscle magazines have all sorts of violent images(roaring flames, roaring animals, roaring fake Frazetta-guys with long swords and big hatchets, funky tribal designs, and frisky S&M broads etc. ...)
but give me a break...training is about focus and "doing it"... Got "anger issues"(or need a "test boaster")...see a shrink.
*
But let's go back even further with this dude...the guy thinks an "aggression" mind-set is necessary as preparation for a high intensity training session.
*
That's stupid. Yes, "mind-set" is important. It's a real key to training (please let's not get into the "mind-body" problem...which probably is a false dualism anyway and let's not get into the difference between "focus" and "concentration" either and let's not talk about "ergolean AMP or silly end-zone dancing...).
*
Getting your-self "fired-up" or "worked-up" chemically("gakked-up") or any other way is stupid.
*
If you are going to fight... do some form of the HAKA...that's fine...but getting your mind right for high intensity training ain't fighting.
*
*
*
*
The guy talking about Arthur Jones "verbally motivating" Casey Viator is totally wrong...I was there for every work-out...it never happened.
*
Arthur did motivate Casey but certainly not that way.
*
Give Arthur more credit. Give Casey more credit.
*
Maybe you guys should read "Zen and the Art of Archery"...
the "Arthur Jones as violent motivator and questioner of manhood" idea seems to fill some peoples' fantasies.
*
Ell's book is really good on most things but not correct on everything and perhaps even Casey will embellish things just a little bit for the sake of a good story.
Howard, your post is still stupid. Sorry about your anger(...and your search for
"test boasters")...maybe you should get some new "heros"
Training and the search for knowledge are interesting things...perhaps the best way is to be confident in what you are doing and to work hard... yet still have an eye open for better ways... I think that's called wisdom.
*
Some people gain it.
But with many people being confident is a problem...their basic lack of confidence and their basic insecurities open them up to believe all kinds of dumb things when all they really wanted was to find a better way... kind of a sad
deal.
*
And, P.T. Barnum is wrong...there is not only more than "one born every minute" but there is a lot more than "two to take 'em"...
*
And the angry search for "test boasters" goes on
*
My basic statement here is that we're lifting weights ...yes, in a "high intensity" style(hey,it's a high intensity training forum)...and aggression (word or concept) doesn't apply.
*
*
And when aggression(word or concept or controlled concept)is mentioned in reference to weight training it usually is a product of the rich fantasy life of the person who is saying it.
But guys like me feel that way so what's the fuss?
(Arthur Jones used to say that a "man gives you a road-map to his soul..."
I think that in most cases this is true. Now, what about this quote: "Strong mental focus and great concentration require aggressiveness...period." Wow!)
*
Ell... the reason I spoke about Arthur as a motivator was that posts were made that made Arthur seem like a wild mad-man(AJ "yelling obscenities and insulting the manhood of guys like Viator and Oliva..." and Arthur carrying "side arms" into the gym...all to motivate) ...now, we both know that Arthur may have had his moments but fear and threats were not how he trained people.
*
Was he stern? yes he was.
*
Was he very very serious at times? yessirree. Was he a master
psychologist? sometimes. Was he a wild man? Nope.
*
Certainly real training involves competition with yourself.
But the inclusion of "aggression" and "hostility" need not be a part of the package...in fact, it's probably better if they not be there at all(too much BS gets smuggled in).
Arthur Jones used to talk a lot about the "display behavior" of wild animals...
he'd tell that the bull elephant waving his trunk and flapping his ears and trumpeting loudly in front of you wasn't to be feared(actually, it would make me a little nervous)...but he wasn't the one that would charge.
*
His fear provoking behavior was a "display".
*
And you need not fear the one who charges... you won't have time because his ears would be pinned back and he would be coming at you like a very silent and very fast freight train.
*
Bang! You’re dead.
*
*
*
*
Most of the need to be "aggressive" (behaviorally or chemically) by weight guys is some sort of "display"... and it's usually kind of silly.(think power-lifters: speed, nose-tork, slapping, head-banging, acting tough, growling and screaming.
*
Think: "test boasting") The control or channeling of "aggression" is an idea that probably comes from Freud or maybe even Napoleon Hill? ...another fantasy I'm afraid...along with most of "sports psychology".
*
That stuff makes things "too mental"...too self-conscious...interesting constructs but not as good as cut the crap and "just do it"...
If you need "macho" imagery to go along with your training...try thinking of the old West "gun-fighter"... ready but expecting nothing.
OK, I'm gonna start my work-out... I'm gonna do 10 hard sets... all sets to failure... realistically, I'm gonna rest a minute or two(maybe even more based on how I feel) between sets...I'm an experienced trainee...I know how to push it and today I'm pushin' it big time. I've been charting my work-outs ...I know what I did two days ago. Today I'm shooting to do better on every exercise.
*
The first exercise is the leg press...I did 36 reps with 400lbs. my last work-out...I really really want to get 40 reps today... I pay attention to form...all reps
smooth and steady...no throwin' the weight...I'm not rushing through the set...I'm making every rep "purposeful"...when I get up around 30 reps it's getting hard now...my heart rate is way up there... I press myself to kept going...my quads are on fire...I'm determined to get more than 36...I'm determined to hold my form...my metal set is "keep going"..."do more"
Well, let's back up to just before I started(but keep thinking about rep 36 and 37 and 38 too)...I didn't use any "test boasters" or "stimulate x" or any other gakking agent or "sports psyching" technique...(I just sort of cleared my mind and said to myself "let's go") but what if I had? at rep 36 would I be more aroused?
*
*
*
*
*
Would my heart rate be any higher?(would I want it any higher?) would my hormones be squirting any more than they already are as I push to get those last few very hard reps? Gosh... Well, I keep keepin'-on and get 38 reps... man, my heart is pounding...my legs are shot...when I get off the machine to get a drink of water my legs are shaking like I'm doing the mombo...I enjoy the cool water...I'm wasted but I feel good... two minutes are gone...then three or four and I'm ready to do my chins... got ten last time...goin' for 11... would like to go lie down but I'm not gonna. Now, other than me saying to myself "I'm going to do this"(and really meaning it) how is a "pre-work out goose-up" gonna help me now? Do I need chemical arousal?...now?(my heart is still beating big time from the leg resses)...what "sports psychology technique" is better than me being really determined? What's better than me using my will and saying to myself...
"I'm doing this..." and then starting my chins...and from there finishing the work-out...every set all out... every movement purposeful...
chemical "test boasting" or even "test boosting" is stupid. "controlled aggression” and "aggression as it applies to exercise" is a manufactured mental construct and a silly, fantasy projection. Will, determination, and rising to the challenge are the stuff of working out...
*
the context of "metabolic conditioning" is preparation for combat sports... the "metabolic
effect" that Arthur Jones is talking about has to do with the system's overall adaptation to workouts that involve a great amount of the muscular mass and where the trainee's
heart-rate is maintained at a very high level throughout the workout... a workout where many of system's capacities are challenged and hopefully (with proper recovery) extended (the "running from one exercise to another"idea is NOT a part of "metabolic conditioning"...recovering enough between exercises to give a maximum performance on the next set is...)...
*
*
*
*
*
In essence, this form of conditioning allows the athlete to perform at a
very high work-rate through time... (steady-state, "aerobic" training or "cardio" doesn't prepare you for this...neither does "strength" training("anaerobic" training) as most people do it...). "Metabolic conditioning" trains you to work at a very high level for an extended period of time...in combat this counts. And this effect can be trained for... but it's truly too tough for most people. (great strength in "weight lifting" means very little in combat... "usable strength" is what counts... "usable strength" for heavy exertion through time...)
*
"Metabolic conditioning" would be an ideal training strategy for today's MMA fighters... a few years ago when I trained Ken Shamrock and other fighters from his "Lion's Den" group that was the way we trained(and at the time they were extremely successful)... most of the weight training done these days by MMA fighters is a very sloppy deal...most of the "cardio" done
*
