Last November I started my quest To Be Decent. The Quest is based off the article Are You Strong? by Tim Henriques. Using the metrics of the article, I nailed 7/12 Decent and 1/12 Good. When you start throwing heavy weight around, you need to balance risk versus reward. The primary goal is to not get injured. Judging by the exercises I had left to tackle, I have decided the risk of injury now exceeds the reward.
I probably should have given this more consideration in November, but I’ve got problems with some of the exercises selected.
- Squat – Yes, I have issues with the Squat. The traditional back squat is murder on your spine. In investing there is the concept of survivorship bias. We model after companies and investors that are still around. Those that get wiped out are removed from the data sample. For the squat, the same thing is going on. You see lots of guys squatting in their 20s, fewer in their 30s and so on. Then you see those few guys in their 50s that are squatting ridiculous amounts of weight. We don’t see the numerous guys who tore up their back. They aren’t coming to the gym anymore. Many strength coaches now favor the front squat, which is much safer on the back. It is harder to do and the lifter must greatly reduce the weight, which can be a blow to ones ego.
- Bench Press – I love doing the bench press, but in order to get that “V” look, one should focus on working the upper pectoral muscles, not the lower. You do that with incline bench presses. Guys who I’ve seen in the gym that lift A LOT of weight on the flat bench press develop so much lower pectoral muscle, that unless they have single digit body fat, look like they are developing breasts.
- Leg Press – Pure non-functional leveraged nonsense. However, I recently learned of a good use for the leg press (besides a coat rack). Single leg. Put on a low amount of weight and use a single leg. This takes all the leverage out and will allow one to gradually build up their weaker leg. Safety first. You will be humbled on how little weight you can do compared to the traditional leg press.
- Pull-Ups, Dips, Push-Ups – I love these exercises. However, in the article the test is how many reps you can get. A better test of strength is weighted pull-ups and weighted dips. Which is more impressive, my 20 body weight pull-ups or my 3 reps with 70 pounds of plates? The 20 reps left me sore for days. The weighted pull-ups left me refreshed enough to return to the gym the next day.
What I need is a new quest. The exercises need to follow my principles.
- Safe
- Functional
- Strength (IOW – no high-rep nonsense)
I will be looking for a new plan. Perhaps I’ll reach out to some strength coaches to design a spine-friendly Quest. And failing that, I can try and design one myself.
Stuart Gilbert
Apr 20, 2012 — 12:26 am
Michael, the problem with trying to conform to external goals like this, which are set by someone else is that they, as I think you have found, a one size fits all target which doesn’t suit everyone. They also often lead the trainee to adopt a “I will reach those targets at whatever cost” approach. This leads to horrible form, which, over time leads to injury, short and long term. I would much rather adopt Richard Winett and Dr Ralph Carpinelli’s approach of “intrinsic training” where progress in weight and / or reps is made after first adhering to more internal markers such as workout focus, good form, rep speed, ROM etc. This approach has worked recently for Dr Winett who has been able to increase his frequency of training recently from years gone by where he used a Mentzer inspired Heavy Duty approach. He still trains hard, and is very strong for someone under 150lbs ( 5′ 6 ) and well into his 60’s. He has also found that a longer TUL of up to 90 seconds, ( more reps..he uses a 3/3 rep speed generlly ) has helped him recover faster and led to much less joint pain…less force on the joints each rep. In his publication ” The Master Trainer” he has promoted the work of Dr Carpinelli, who has done meta analyses on research which has largely found no difference in results in markers of strength and hypertrophy in alternative variables such as high and low reps, single and multiple sets, slow and fast rep speeds etc. I would always err on the side of safety ( being 45 with 2 arthritic knees and various other aches and pains. ) The work of Drs Winett and Carpinelli have gone a long way to help me validate my current approach. So has the work of Bill DeSimone…and in his book “Moment Arm Exercise” and his chest videos on optimalex channel, he states that it is more than likely not the angle of bench which determines the area of chest development…but more the path of the bar, as determined by the angle of the arms relative to the torso (arms closer to the body, more shoulder flexion rather than horizontal adduction , leading to more shoulder and clavicular head of the pec involvement).
Stuart Gilbert
Apr 20, 2012 — 12:35 am
…also in a Facebook conversation with Bill, his view is that the front squat has similar spinal issues to the back squat, with similar dangers in the short and long term. Also the front squat lends itself more to spine crushing low reps, it’s not a high rep exercise. I like Bill’s suggestions of the leg press and split squat ( which I’m using successfully in my own training at the moment ) and the hip belt squat, which I plan on using sometime in the future…..keep up the good work Michael. I love it when writers such as yourself indulge in self reflection and analysis of their own approach…and as a result are not scared to admit that they made mistakes and got it wrong…and perhaps they didn’t and don’t know everything. This means that they are still prepared to learn. I’d much rather listen to someone like that than a dogmatic so called “expert” or “guru” who is rigid in their approach, even in the face of mounting evidence. In that sense, when it comes to fitness your writing falls in the category of Richard Winett and Bill DeSimone, who are very similar in their approaches.
MAS
Apr 20, 2012 — 6:56 am
@Stuart – I agree with everything you said. My approach to strength training changed completely after ready Body By Science and visiting Ideal Exercise.
I am unfamiliar with Richard Winett, but I like the 3/3 90second TUL idea. I’m going to give it a try the next time I head to the gym. Lately I’ve been thinking about how using the same cadence to go to failure every time might not be the best idea.
The best thing about a front squat is it isn’t a back squat. I feel much better since I moved to slow goblet squats. Most of the time, I don’t do any squats.
Stuart Gilbert
Apr 20, 2012 — 8:01 am
Michael…I would fully recommend Richard Winett’s publication “The Master Trainer”.
MAS
Apr 20, 2012 — 10:39 am
@Stuart – back from the gym. I really liked the 3/3 tempo, especially in the early reps. Towards the very end, I slowed down the negative to 5 seconds. Old habits. 🙂
Stuart Gilbert
Apr 20, 2012 — 3:27 pm
3/3 is what Richard Winett does…personally I do 2/2 and hold it for a second at the top for some contracted exercises. i just think 2/2 is slightly more natural and still keeps momentum out of the equation. A slower negative can actually be seen as a break in a rep..it makes it easier as you are stronger in the eccentric part of the rep. So it’s like you’re having a bit of a rest by taking a longer negative.