All parts of these series:

• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 1: Historical Perspectives
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 2: Challenging The Overreaction
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 3: 7 Key Practical Strategies
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 4: Correcting The Imbalances – You are here

The Final Words on Single-Leg Exercise

Thirty years later, the challenges I believe exist for the optimal application of single-leg exercises are these:

• Too many single leg exercises
• An imbalance of quad dominant to hip dominant exercises

In essence, the first problem was solved and then moved into an overreaction that created new problems, while the second problem still exists. I believe the second point is currently the greatest challenge moving forward. This flaw in program design and training – dominating in quad dominant exercise – presents far greater risks and damage than the first concern.

I have shared this message in writing consistently since the 1990s:

It is my belief that an imbalance between quad dominant and hip dominant exercises where quad dominance is superior results in a significantly higher incidence of injury and detraction from performance.¹

Why the Limitations in Program Design Have Not Advanced

I suggest that program design, at least at the mainstream level, has not advanced in this area of muscle imbalance during the last few decades. For example, I present a program from a mainstream popular U.S. bodybuilding magazine from 1997, which was indicative of the dominant trends at the time, written by people I describe as trend followers. An analysis of this program reveals the following:² 

Analysis by muscle groups/lines of movements in strength training workouts in Stage 1: 

I challenge you to obtain any dominant paradigm-based program from today and run this analysis. I suggest that for the majority of cases, you will see similar levels of sequencing imbalance as appeared in the above bodybuilding magazine.

The fact that the world of training has failed to adequately address this speaks to the absence of true understating of my concepts, in particular by those who have chosen to publish my concepts unreferenced and without adequate understanding of their intent.

A Crash Course in My Teaching on Prioritization

The key to long-term health in training is balance in program design:

Balance: all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body. For example for every upper body exercise there would be a lower body exercise. For every upper body pushing movement, there would be an upper body pulling movement. For every vertical pushing movement there would be a vertical pulling movement. For every hip dominant exercise there would be a quad dominant exercise. And so on.³ 

The challenge prior to my publications in the late 1990s was that no one knew how to create balance in program design. I identified three keys to balance in program design – sequence, volume, and intensity:

You see, in essence all programs have an imbalance or a prioritization. This come from the sequence of exercises within the workout and week, the allocation of volume, the relative use of intensity, the comparative selection of exercise categories and so on.⁴

The simplest way to start out ensuring balance in your programs is to being with an understanding of the role of sequence.

The Role of Sequence in Prioritization

Prioritization by sequence means that a muscle group receives priority and benefit by being placed early in the training program. Prioritization by sequence can occur in two ways:

• Within the workout: The higher an exercise is placed in the daily workout, the greater the priority and benefit received by that muscle group. The number one way to give a muscle group priority is to place it first in the workout.
• Within the training week: A muscle group that is trained early in the training week or microcycle will receive priority and the associated benefits in comparison to a muscle group trained later in the week. The most effective way to prioritize a muscle group is to train it early in the training week or microcycle.⁵

In conjunction with my prioritization, balance, and lines of movement concept, I have developed and taught a technique where you can analyze any strength-training program for its balance. You can learn more about this in my live presentations from 1998 onward, but here’s an extract:

Let’s do the lower body. You know how I divide the lower body? Hip dominant and quad dominant. You know why? Quad dominance anteriorly rotates the pelvis; hip dominance posteriorly rotates the pelvis. You want to create balance around the pelvis, you need guess what? Equal attention, by volume and sequence.

So QD vs. HD, lets count them (counting). 4:1 (day 1) and 4:1 (day 2) again. We call push press a quad, because it’s a vertical trunk. We have got a ratio of volume of 4: 1. That imbalance is actually even worse than the one above. The only safing is that there is more overlap between HD and QD; they do use more similar muscle. Having said that, it’s still an incredible blow out on ratio. So that is volume.

Now let’s look at sequencing. You’d imagine it would reverse the sequence, wouldn’t you? QD and HD, like one day that comes first, and you swap it over. What comes first (day1)? Quad. What comes first (day2)? Quad. Where is HD? Last and nearly last. So by sequencing also you are creating hip suicide, absolute hip suicide. And guess what’s going to happen? When the pelvis is rotated resulted by these activities and the nerves are getting impinged, what you going to get? Hamstrings strains, quad strains, hamstring tears, groin strains, groin tears, lower back pain… you destroy the health of the lower body of the athlete. Of course when the pelvis is rotated forward it changes the position of the whole spine, changes the way you run, changes the power output in the lower body, changes the muscle tension, affects the ability to recover.

Now remember: ideally you’d reverse it over so it was QD and HD and it would be HD and QD. But still whatever happens on the first day of the week is still getting a better result, so you need to put the weakness prioritized on the first day. If you would assume, as generalization, where would people mostly be weak? HD or QD? HD. especially Shawn in this situation. So Shawn would go HD-QD, QD-HD. at the very worst. More ideally he’d go HD-QD and HD-QD again.

You don’t have one program. His initial program might be hip – quad, hip – quad. I’ll show you the progression. If I was to reverse this program, the downsides of this program, this is what I’d do with Shawn. We got an A, B, C and D day. His first program would be HD – QD on both days. His next program, his next stage, I might allow a reversal for variety, and down the track he might even come back to QD-HD, HD-Qd. that’s 3 distinct alternatives that he’s got. But believe me: he’d spend a lot of time in the first one to counter that. If he did this (old) program for 6 month, guess what? He’d have to do the other program for 6 month to counter it. Now you understand how I design programs a little bit better? You reverse the imbalances that they’ve been exposed to.

The bottom line is: for some reason people in this industry believe that sequencing is locked in, that there is only one way to sequence.

…So even if you had equal volume, and had equal prioritization, if the loading exposure was different push and pull, you’d still have an issue.⁶

The Lines of Movement Concept

During the 1980s, I began to research methods of categorizing strength exercises. By the end of this decade I had developed a concept I called lines of movement. After trialling this method for about ten years, I released details of this and other methods I developed for categorizing exercises. I structure this organization under the umbrella concept of family trees of exercises. I then expand into lines of movement, and then divide exercises based on the number of limbs and joints involved.

These methods go far beyond simple organization. They allowed me to develop my methods of analyzing balance in strength training program design. I believe these innovations are the most effective tools available to guide a person designing a program to create optimal balance and reduce injury potential.

The first time I expanded fully on this concept was in a 1998 seminar:⁷

After many years I have decided that there [are] two family trees in lower body exercises – one where the quad dominates, and one where the hip dominates. When I say hip I mean the posterior chain muscle groups – the hip extensors; which are gluteals, hamstrings, lower back – they’re your hip extensors. And I believe this – the head of the family in the quad dominant exercises is the squat. That’s the head of the family. And there are 101 lead-up exercises to it and there’s a few on after it as well. But the core exercise for the quad dominant group is the squat. It’s the most likely used exercise in that group for the majority of people.

The hip dominant exercises – the father of the hip dominant tree is the deadlift – which when done correctly would be the most common exercise of that group. There are lead-in exercises, and there are advanced exercises from it.

So I build my family tree around the squat and I build my family tree around the deadlift. And I balance them up. In general, for every squat exercise or every quad dominant exercise I show in that week a hip dominant exercise in that week. And what do most people do in their program designs – they would do two quad dominant exercises for every hip dominant exercise. What is the most common imbalance that occurs in the lower body?

….To balance the athlete I work on a ratio of 1 to 1 of hip and quad dominant – in general. And I can assure you – most programs you’ll see are 2 to 1 – quad and hip.

That’s a concept I’m sure you’ll have never heard before because this is the first time I have spoken about it.

The following shows a breakdown of the body into major muscle groups/lines of movement, and then into examples of exercises. It is what I call ‘the family trees of exercise’. Use this to assess balance in your exercise selection.

Now I am going to show you how I break the muscle groups up:

Lower body:

• Quad dominant
• Hip dominant

Upper body:

• Horizontal plane push
• Horizontal plane pull
• Vertical plane push
• Vertical plane pull

These concepts are now used throughout the world. They are unique concepts aimed at solving a real problem. However, they are not being used appropriately or effectively, and therefore the problem I described in the 1990s not only exists, but I suggest it has become a bigger problem.

I suggest that ethical and well-read authors and presenters reference and credit the origin. The proliferation of unreferenced publishing of this concept has meant that the world has been denied a fuller understanding of the intent of this concept.

The Definition of Quad and Hip Dominant Movement

One of the missing parts is a clear understanding of how I defined and differentiated between a quad dominant and hip dominant exercise. The lower body was more complicated than the upper body, and required significantly more deliberation. In essence, the categories I ultimately identified (quad and hip), both work through similar lines of movement and use similar muscles (in multi-joint movements at least).

The real separation between the two groups (quad and hip) when performing multi-joint movements is how much quad is being used versus how much of the posterior chain muscle groups are being used.

This dilemma was shared in print in my earlier writings:⁸

Attempts to isolate the quad dominant from hip dominant exercises.

The majority of lower body exercises will have some overlap between the typical quad dominant and hip dominant exercises. Take the squat (quad dominant) and the deadlift (head of hip dominant family tree). They both involve all the muscles of the legs, hips and lower back. The subtle differences are poorly recognized however, which is why, in my opinion, most coaches cannot see imbalances in training that they don’t understand. The muscle groups used in the squat and deadlift may be similar but the training effects are significantly different!

This was my thinking – to simply create a definition that separated these two relatively close and overlapping movements. So my definition of what constitutes a quad dominant and what constitutes a hip dominant movement was outlined in the following way:⁹

As a guide, I categorize a multi-joint lower body exercise as hip dominant if it has a significant degree of trunk flexion (placing the gluts on stretch) e.g. hip break lower bar squat, deadlift. If it involves a vertical or near-vertical trunk (e.g. lunge, knee-break squat), I categorize it as a quad dominant exercise.

Here’s another explanation:¹⁰

I will go over how I categorize exercises into each of these two groups. Please work with me on this, however – it is a loose, practical definition – not an exact science…

Any lower body exercise where the trunk remains at or above 45 degrees of flexion I loosely call a quad dominant exercise e.g. Squat. Any leg exercise where the trunk is flexed greater than 45 degrees I loosely call a hip dominant exercise.

So a lunge is a quad dominant and a leg press a quad dominant – the later dependant upon the back support angle, but for all purposes of this working definition, a quad dominant exercise.

As you can see statements above, made over a decade ago, despite my generalization that the squat is the head of the quad dominant tree and the deadlift is head of the hip dominant tree, which category any given exercise is placed depends on how that exercise is conducted.

The Risks of Prioritization of Quad Dominant Movements

Now you have a clearer understanding of the history and intent of the line of movement exercise categorization concept, as well as how to determine which of these two categories any given leg exercises falls into. So, I want to stress upon you the risks you are taking by ignoring this guidance. The implications of creating muscle imbalances through prioritization of quad dominant movements occur in this sequence:

Stage 1: An initial feeling of superior benefit, in leg strength and or ability to leg drive.

Stage 2: A cessation of benefits, in particular transfer to sport or your specific function, despite increased gains in the quad dominant movements.

Stage 3: Performance decrement due to adaptation to non-specific leg strengths that don’t transfer and delayed ground contact time from adapting to long, slow lifts.

Stage 4: Neural inhibition impeding strength expression and providing warning signs of developing issues – typically referred pain into the lower extremities (e.g. muscle strains of the upper or lower legs and or groin), but can be as high as the lower trunk (e.g. hernia like symptoms).

Stage 5: Higher-level injuries such as ligament ruptures, joint dislocations, and muscle tears, causing a permanent negative impact on your function, appearance, and quality of life. I suggest that by this stage the time frame to joint replacement (hip and knee) has been brought forward five to twenty years.

Sounds dramatic? No drama intended. Simply my conclusions from thirty-plus years of studying human response to intense and long term training loads. I suggest we have more athletes and non-athletes entering stage five of this progression in the world than ever before in the recorded history of mankind. This may be simply my hypothesis and theories, but I will be willing to learn from any of you who have ignored my advice in the decades to come.

Quad Dominant Athletes Should Not Be Given Quad Dominant Training

For those who are participating in competitive sports or training athletes who are, I take this moment to share this point. If the sport is a quad dominant sport (and most are) you should not be allowing the athlete to do any quad dominant exercises until you are sure that the muscle balance between quad and hip dominance has been restored to a satisfactory level.

What is satisfactory? It’s unlikely you will be able to assess optimal transfer, as this is a high-level coaching concept possessed by few. Unfortunately for most strength coaches, the presence of any lower body injury (chronic or impact) should raise doubts in your mind as to whether you got this balance right. 

Yes, this approach is counter to the sport specific paradigm, which is in my opinion synonymous with the functional training dogma – i.e. we know what exercises will transfer. (In fact you don’t, until you do them, and only if you have the ability to assess transfer, which I suggest few possess. After all, no one teaches it. You won’t learn it in formal sport science education, and the people most are drawn to because of their marketing prowess have no chance of being able to teach this.)

There is no shortage of books on functional training by authors who have successfully promoted their expertise, in which you are encouraged to imitate the sporting movement. I strongly suggest you disregard this advice.

Close-Kinetic Chain Exercises Exacerbate This Imbalance

One of the many dominant trends that is of dubious value at best is the dogma that exercises are more functional if done standing up. I suggest those who promote this concept lack the experience in coaching to fully appreciate this area of knowledge, and those who blindly copy this lack the desire or ability to apply objective thinking.

In short, one of the implications is that more exercises are being done in a position that increases the quad dominant component. For example, for all the time spend standing shaking a heavy rope that has more application on a shipyard dock than in a physical training program, are you in a hip dominant position for similar durations and similar intensity in leg contractions? I doubt it.

You Are Wrecking Your Future

Quite simply, following the quad dominant trends in popular training programs and training methods is resulting in a whole wave of humans reducing their performance potential in the mid-term and reducing the quality of their lives in the long term.

I understand that my assessment of the current situation and my solutions will be considered heretical, as was the response to many of my significant teachings when first released – the concept of using digits to time strength movements; the suggestion that the pause between the concentric and eccentric in strength training was a variable worthy of measuring and manipulating; the concept of lines of movement, and associated suggestions such as doing chin ups is not equal to and fails to counter the bench press; the suggestion of control drills before training – I could go on.

What I have learned is that the most vicious reactions come from those whose guru status is being threatened because my teachings appear to undermine them. What I have also learned is these same protagonists turn around within a few years and teach my concepts, albeit as their own.

What I suggest you do is not wait until your guru has overcome his or her hurt and finally brought to the market the ideas I have proposed in this article series. What I suggest is you use these ideas immediately, giving you the greatest chance to overcome, reverse, and essentially salvage your body before too much more damage is done.

All parts of these series:

• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 1: Historical Perspectives
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 2: Challenging The Overreaction
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 3: 7 Key Practical Strategies
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 4: Correcting The Imbalances – You are here

References:

1. King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Exercises(book), p. 99

2. King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series DVD/Audio, King Sports International, Brisbane AUS. Content that changed the way the world did strength training.

3. King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs (book), p. 38

4. King, I., 2003, Ask the master, p. 143

5. King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, p. 85

6. King, I., 2000, Injury Prevention & Rehabilitation (DVD)

7. King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series (DVD), Disc 3, approx 1hr 03m 00sec in.

8. King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Exercises  p. 99

9. King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Exercises (2000), p. 106

10. King, I., 2003, Ask the Master, (book), p. 18

Photos courtesy of Shutterstock.

The post Unilateral Leg Training, Part 4: Correcting the Imbalances appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

All parts of these series:

• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 1: Historical Perspectives
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 2: Challenging The Overreaction
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 3: 7 Key Practical Strategies – You are here
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 4: Correcting The Imbalances

#1 Progress Along a Continuum From Unilateral to Bilateral

When I released my single-leg training concepts to the broader market in the late 1990s, there was never any suggestion they should replace bilateral exercises. In fact if you studied the original Get Buffed! and Limping programs, you will note I progressed from a dominance of single leg or unilateral leg exercises to a dominance of bilateral leg exercises.

My next and final step is to divide all the above into unilateral and bilateral, and single and double/multi-joint exercises (refer Figure 5 and Tables 7-16). Note these tables give examples of exercises that suit both the family tree, the number of limbs and joints involved, and the training method/desired adaptation.³

What I am seeing again is that overreaction I spoke of with unilateral leg exercises being touted as superior to bilateral. I suggest it is not accurate or beneficial to take this simplistic viewpoint. All training decisions should be ideally fully individualized.

I created extensive guidelines showing exercise progressions from unilateral to bilateral within each line of movement. These tables were original works. In the simplest form regarding joint involvement, the tables available in the How to Write book work on a continuum as per below:⁴

Lower body exercise options as per the hip-dominant, lower-body family tree:⁵

#2 Always Retain the Lower End of the Continuum

As an extension of the above point, where possible always stay in touch with the exercises that are being deemphasized in any given phase. The challenges with neglecting any exercise for a long period of time include a detraining of its specific benefits and increased DOMS when one returns to the exercise.

For example, even in Stage 1 of the Get Buffed! and Limping programs, where single-leg, lower-body exercises dominate, you can still see a trace of bilateral exercises. And vice versa, as the program unfolded towards the fourth and final stage with dominance in bilateral loaded movements, you will see some exposure in a maintenance level towards the lower load unilateral exercises.

Typically I would place the maintenance movements towards the end of the program. The below table is a simplistic representation of this:

#3 Prioritize Hip Dominant Over Quad Dominant

Prior to my release of the lines of movement concept, the lower body was typically treated as one. Following my introduction of distinction between quad- and hip-dominant exercises, and the subsequent take up of this idea universally, I would have expected a much greater working application of this concept. I have been seriously disappointed with the failings of this powerful concept to make enough of a difference. I believe in part this is due to those who took it upon themselves to teach my concept, but were themselves not in mastery of it in the practical application sense.

I understand I am going to have to champion the concern about quad dominance in strength training trends globally for much longer than I originally expected. One of the greatest challenges faced in attempting to teach the world how to ensure balance in their program is that for the most part the average trainer makes decisions based on social bias, i.e. what most others are doing. I believe that training trends are currently driven more by marketing forces than by rational, objective, and intuitive thinking.

It appears there is significant peer pressure to use a certain training tool or cutting edge training exercise or method. As the decisions are made more and more by marketing trends and humans need to conform, I am seeing a movement away from objective thinking.

So I am going to say this simply. Get ready to lead with hip-dominant exercises. When I say lead, I mean to place them first in the workout and the week, and do them in higher volume:

1. If you are currently balanced between hip and thigh musculature and strength, then lead with hip-dominant exercises most of the time.
2. If you recognize you are imbalanced in this department, typically from years of imbalanced training (until you read my writings) – then expect to lead with hip-dominant exercises for a number of years to come.
3. If you are really in trouble, i.e. your quad dominance over hip dominance is causing or will cause you serious grief, then be willing to drop all quad-dominant exercises indefinitely until you have ascertained you are balanced again.

#4 Manipulate the Ratio of Left to Right Reps

Another strategy to rebalance your quad and hip dominance is to manipulate the ratio of strong side to weak site reps. Here is what I wrote on the matter:^6,7

Instead, plan to use unilateral movements (i.e. one limb at a time), applying my ‘Weak Side’ rules:

• Do the weak or injured side first.
• Then maybe do the strong side.
• Do no more reps or load (strength) or time (stretching) on the strong/long sides than the weak/tighter side could do;
• If the imbalance is greater than 10%, or thereabouts, consider doing a lower ratio of reps on the strong side to the weak side. If the weak side can only do 10 reps, do only 5 reps on the strong side (or two sets on the weak side to one set on the strong side); or do 10 minutes of stretching on the tight side but only 5 minutes on the long side. This is a ratio of 2:1, weak side to the strong side. If the imbalance is greater than-50 %, consider doing no work on the strong side at all.

Here’s a way you can work this even in a class situation. Let say you were doing a semi-unilateral, alternated-leg drill such as lunges. You recognize the need to show bias in reps to the weak side, but you don’t want to get out of sync with the class. You work a ratio on a needs basis, e.g. three reps on the weak side, one rep on the strong side. You keep going with this until you achieve your desired number of reps or time expires.

#5 Respect the Need to Counter Downsides of Strength Training

I have noted a bias in U.S.-influenced training methodology towards strength. Now, in theory, this might seem great, especially to those who believe higher strength levels mean better athletic performance. I don’t. My belief is that all things being equal, it may serve you. But as individual’s strength increases, it’s rare that all things stay equal. What typically happens as people get stronger is that they change in their muscle length and tension for the worse.

To help you understand this concept, I share from my writings from early in the 2000s:

T: Next category: Injury prevention.

Ian: This is the way the game is played. Most people go the gym and create problems. They don’t know it, but they’re creating problems. Most programs – including those being promoted as “guru” programs – are creating problems. It’s a simply trade-off between instant gratification and delayed long-term results. Sure, you might get a pump today, but in three years’ time you’re having surgery, or you can’t train for 12 months. How does it feel to put in those 5000 hours and find out you’ve only created an injury?

T: Is this caused mostly from a lack of stretching?

Ian: Stretching is involved; it’s one of the components. But it’s also the balance between the muscles. When you f*** with the body’s length, tension and stability, you’re going to create a problem. The joints were designed to move relative to each other in a certain way, and when you apply a powerful stimulus such as weight training, you could, for example, change the way the shoulder rotates in the joint because of your program. You’re just f****** that joint. There is no other way to describe it.⁸

Soft tissue length, tension and joint stability – the keys to joint health and injury prevention.

Whilst simplistic in concept, a mastery of the optimal condition in soft tissue length, tension and joint stability, for each individual athlete in each joint in relation to specific activities would result in significant reduction in injury incidence and severity. This simple concept is worth the effort to master.⁹

For anyone wanting to learn more about how to manage, prevent, or rehab injuries to the joints of the lower body in particular the knees, you will value this:

Safeguarding the knee becomes a game of controlling the length and tension of the soft tissue.

For the pain to commence with impaired function of the muscles that support the knee, you’re looking for either reduced length of the connective tissue or heightened tension in connective tissue.

So if the pain is under the kneecap or in the joint, stretching/adjusting the tension in these tissues may help. So if the pain is lateral, medial or under the kneecap, stretching/adjusting the tension in these tissues may help. So if the pain is medial or under the knee cap, stretching/adjusting the tension in these tissues may help.¹⁰

#6 Technique Does Matter

There is significant pressure and influence from a variety of circles to “go heavy or go home.” That’s fine, but I suggest that technique is still more important than loading. And just because you are engaging in the all-conquering, single-leg training does not exempt you from this.

I prioritize technique because of my focus on selective recruitment:

…Load is over-rated – if you do not have technique, if you do not have selective recruitment, you are increasing the risk to the athlete by exposing them to that loading. So if it is one thing I teach you it is get that recruitment, get the technique, prioritize that over the loading. The athlete is not getting judged in athletic success by how much they lift in the gym so why take risks in the gym…¹¹

And my belief that load-induced technique breakdown is highly correlated with injury:

Not only does the excessive focus on loading have questionable superior transfer, it also involves greater injury risks for a number of reasons. Firstly, higher loading may result in a higher incidence of trauma e.g. torn muscles, ligaments. Secondly, the added loading increases joint wear, which over time will accumulate and manifest as an ‘injury’. Thirdly, the athlete will inevitably compromise technique to lift heavier, and develop muscle imbalances as a result.¹²

This does not mean I question the value of loading:

Loading (intensity) is an important variable, in most cases more important than volume. However loading in strength training is an attraction that blinds the user to the downsides or limitations of loading. There are a number of situations where loading is used inappropriately, and with a high cost.¹³

I simply believe you will get a better transfer to the function you are training for, and fewer injuries along with it, if you prioritize loading.

#7 Prepare the Joint Before Loading It

There is no doubt that I have a long and large respect for single-leg training, having pioneered, championed, and innovated in this area for the last few decades. What I want to stress, though, is that just because single-leg training is great, doesn’t mean it comes without downsides.

Those that can recall my Opposite and Equal principle know what I am talking about here:

This is a very interesting principle, a concept that I have created. …The concept is based on the belief that to every action (in training) there is a positive and a negative outcome, and that often the negative outcome is equal or as powerful as the positive outcome.^14,15

One of the major concerns or downsides presented by single-leg training is that in essence you double your load immediately – and that’s just if you are using bodyweight as opposed to additional external loading. This places an additional burden on you, assuming you wish to have longevity in your joints, to adequately prepare the joint for loading.

There are a number of progressions I recommend:

• You have to stretch before loading, especially the muscles of the knee and hip.
• Dynamic stretching is not adequate (in fact, I don’t believe it should be called stretching). You need stretching methods more conducive to creating length, such as static. Yes, I know what you are thinking because I have been dodging the stone throwing for my heresy for many years now.
• The older you are and the more damaged your joints are, the more you need to do this – and the more you should have done it before you got to this point.
• My concept of control drills (another original innovation) will also serve to protect the joint.
• You can and should consider open-chain (off your feet – yes, I know more stones) exercises in the progression to closed-chain (on your feet).
• Do bilateral before unilateral exercises.
• Use bodyweight before external loading in the micro and macro sense.

Conclusion

I have more strategies that I could teach, but as was the case when I first introduced single-leg training into the mainstream consciousness (e.g. the Limping program), I will intentionally hold back because I know I have pushed the boundaries of acceptance in challenging your thinking. After all, I have suggested some “radical” ideas. 

The irony is that single-leg exercises were once challenging and heretical. Now they are mainstream. I am totally confident that what I have shared above will follow that same path, so why wait until everyone is doing it? Benefit from this information now.

In part four Correcting The Imbalances I will focus on the challenges and solutions ahead in the application of single-leg training.

All parts of these series:

• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 1: Historical Perspectives
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 2: Challenging The Overreaction
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 3: 7 Key Practical Strategies – You are here
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 4: Correcting The Imbalances

References:

1. King, I., 1999, Get Buffed (book

2. King, I, 1999, “Twelve Weeks of Pain, Part I – Limping into October“, T-nation.com, Fri, Sep 17

3. King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs, p. 40

4. King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs, p. 42-49

5. King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs, p. 49

6. King, I., 1999, Question of Power, t-mag.com, No. 43, March 12 1999

7. King, I., 1999, Question of Power, Q & A column with Ian King, t-mag.com. No. 43, 12 Mar 1999

8. King, I., 2000, in Shugart, C., Meet The Press – Coach of coaches: An interview with Ian King, 29 Dec 2000, t-mag.com

9. King, I., 2005, The Way of the Physical Preparation Coach, p. 67

10. King, I., 2003, King, I., 2003, Out of Kilter III – End needless knee pain! t-mag.com, 28 Nov 2003

11. King, I., 2000, How to Teach (DVD)

12. King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing, p. 44-45

13. King, I., 2005, The Way of the Physical Preparation Coach, p. 47

14. King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing, p. 38-39

15. King, I., 1999/2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation (course/book) p. 30-31

Photos courtesy of Shutterstock.

The post Unilateral Leg Training, Part 3: 7 Key Practical Strategies appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

All parts of these series:

• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 1: Historical Perspectives
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 2: Challenging The Overreaction – You are here
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 3: 7 Key Practical Strategies
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 4: Correcting The Imbalances

The Trend of Overreaction to Trends

In the late 1990s, I introduced the concept of human overreaction to new trends, influenced by my study of futurism:

Futurists describe human response to a new idea as an over-reaction in the short term and an under-reaction in the long term. So a new idea comes up, like say the Swiss ball and everybody jumps on it, they’re having breakfast on it, they’re having dinner on it, they’re having lunch on it, they are sleeping on it and then they realise that wasn’t necessary so they lose interest in. There is a happy medium.¹

I encouraged those in the training world to act with discernment and objectively analyze the true contribution of a new trend to their training before fully committing to long-term implementation of the trend.

It is also appropriate to remind you of the natural human and social reactions – overreaction in the short term and an under-reaction in the long term. When a new thing becomes popular, many over promote it and many over use it. After a while they become disillusioned or bored, and then under use it.

Instead of going through this yo-yo response, I encourage you to objectively analyze any new trend. Ask yourself, what application would that have for me? Cut out any marketing hype or the opinions of others. Ask and answer the question yourself with complete objectivity. If you can do this exercise, I believe you will save yourself a lot of time and energy.²

I am doing the same now, in the hope that you may be inspired to give objective review to what does or doesn’t serve you as it relates to single-leg training. To achieve this, I have selected a number of trends that I have observed, often supported by compliance-seeking emotive writings or dogma – and I will share my perspective on them. Each of these points or myths deserves deeper discussion in the appropriate forum. But for now I raise them to challenge you to think for yourself.

So in the following I will challenge what now appears to be entrenched paradigms about single-leg training that in many cases I suggest are nothing more than myths.

Single-Leg Training Is More Functional Than Double Leg

This is one of the more entrenched myths presented as dogma – that you should and need to do single-leg training because it is more functional. To expedite this discussion, I am going to define the word functional as a synonym for the 1990s catch-cry and justification for any exercise you chose – specific.

Here’s what I said about this in 2009:

Functional as it is popularly used is nothing more than an extension of the over-application of the term and concept ‘specificity’ – which preceded ‘functional’ in terms of being the dominant trend term and concept – and also assumes an outcome. To claim an exercise or training method is ‘specific’ relies on an assumption that you know how any given person will respond to the exercise or training method, and that you know in advance that this adaptation will enhance their ability to perform a specific task or sport.³

There is a time and place for both unilateral and bilateral. I do not support generalizing to all people all the time by saying one is superior. The specificity, or more importantly transfer, from a strength exercise to any specific sporting or functional movement is a lot more complex than many are led to believe. This is a subject to which we could dedicate considerable time.

Do Single-Leg Exercise Because Most Human Movement Uses One Leg

This is an extension of the above point that deserves separate focus. I have read this theory too many times, typically presented by a person who is teaching unilateral exercises because they know it is popular. Not because their intuition in training led them to unilateral training before single-leg training reached the tipping point of popularity.

Again this debate risks opening up a Pandora’s box of the difference between what appears specific to the average thinker and what provides the most superior transfer. As a guideline to commence a more objective approach to this, I recommend you become familiar with my specificity continuum and for my hierarchical approach to strength training variables specificity.⁴ For example, I challenge the superior transfer to sprinting from combined training of sprinting and single-leg exercises over the combined training of sprinting and double-leg exercises with greater loading.

You Don’t Need the Loading Offered by Bilateral Exercises

Generally speaking, I believe it is accurate to state that your load potential is greater with two legs working together in absolute terms. I always refer back to the dominant term describing the training effects of strength training – neuromuscular. In other words, the training of the nervous system in a non-specific way is a training effect that you potentially lose when you compromise on load.

When an overreaction to load or bilateral exercise avoidance occurs, you are denying yourself of 50% of the potential training benefits of strength training. Many highly successful coaches have achieved world-leading on-field success with loaded bilateral movements, not the least the late great Canadian speed coach Charlie Francis.

Make Up for Absence of Overload by Going Heavy on Unilateral

I often see writers glorify how strong their athletes are in unilateral leg exercises, stating how much they can lift. Without seeking to get too deep on this subject, I want to clarify that the purposes for which I developed unilateral leg training options did not include maximal loading. My intent was to return to more conventional bilateral movements to achieve loading. There are dubious benefits being claimed for maximal loaded single-leg strength exercises, and a host of technical and injury risk factors that warrant further discussion.

You Have to Train Multiple Planes in One Exercise

This myth applies not only to unilateral exercises, but also to bilateral exercises. The paradigm that superior benefits are gained from multi-planar movements is a very flawed proposal. In its simplest form, this focus or expectation dilutes the primary focus and results in a compromise in training effects. Generally speaking, there is no evidence of the superior transfer of these movements to sport or function. There is a lot of space between what sounds great in theory and the reality of the efficacy of the theory.

Only Multi-Joint Exercises Should Be Done

This is another myth that applies both to unilateral and bilateral exercises. This is another great example of overreacting by humans as it applies to strength training. Again, while is sounds great in theory, there is nothing substantial in this dogma that would lead me to embrace it. In my opinion, the time-tested teaching and learning philosophy of moving from isolated to compound movements is not overridden by this new age myth.

Only Closed-Chain Kinetic Exercises (on Your Feet) Should Be Done

This is yet another of these more recent paradigms that affect the choices made in relation to both unilateral and bilateral exercises. I have watched this theory gain momentum since the late 1990s. I believe it is another misleading trend that denies many the fuller potential of training effects on offer when a more open-minded and objective approach is taken to exercise selection and strength training periodization. You will note many of my unilateral leg innovations are single joint and (God forbid) open-chain kinetic (off your feet) exercises.

Lunges and Bench Steps Are Unilateral Exercises

A unilateral movement is just that – one leg only. When you load in a split stance you have the choice of sharing the load between legs, and typically do. In fact, depending on a variety of factors, you may actually be load sharing in a manner that you are completely unaware of. This typically explains why sometimes you are doing these movements and the intended working leg is not getting as tired or sore as the intended non-working leg. I call movements such as these semi-unilateral. They have their place – you will simply benefit from being aware of this distinction.

Unilateral Leg Exercises Are injury Risk Free and Fix Imbalances

In relation to being risk free, the same variables that threaten or raise injury risk in bilateral movements also apply to unilateral movements. Perhaps the largest one is technique. If you get out of line with a loaded unilateral movement, you can still get injured.

In relation to being guaranteed to fix imbalances, strength training is not the exclusive factor contributing to or causing injuries or injury potential. Of equal if not greater contribution is connective tissue length (flexibility) and tension. Strength training, even if it is unilateral leg exercises, does not typically improve either length or tension imbalances or shortfalls. In fact it typically affects them in the downward trajectory. Therefore, for that reason alone, unilateral leg exercises in themselves cannot be expected to guarantee to fix imbalances.

You Must Hold a Trendy Tool While Doing Unilateral Movements

As new training tools (or toys, depending on your perspective) come on to the market it is in some ways comical to watch people not only find ways to integrate them into the trend of single-leg training, but to make claims as to their superiority and necessity. To me, this is an exercise in not thinking – being a consumer victim.

You do not need to be using any trendy toy like a child holding a favorite blanket. It is okay for you to do your unilateral movements using old-fashioned approaches, such as bodyweight, dumbbells in the hand, or ankle weights on the leg. You don’t need to be flipping a rope, sitting on a Swiss ball, balancing on a Bosu ball, or throwing kettlebells around. You won’t get struck by lightning. Not only is it okay to utilize loading or equipment of your choosing relative to your needs, but it will give you superior training results to do so.

Conclusion

I’ve shared the above with you as some insights into what I describe as overreactions that have turned into dogmatic paradigms about an incredibly valuable training method, single-leg training. In the first part of this series, I spoke of the absence of single-leg training in programs up until about 2000. This was not a criticism per se, rather a message of how easy it is to fall into the trap of following the trend, only to look back a short period of time later and realize that you were misguided. A more objective approach in the present can circumvent that regret.

In the next installment 7 Key Practical Strategies I will share some specific guidelines of how you can make the most of this training method.

All parts of these series:

• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 1: Historical Perspectives
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 2: Challenging The Overreaction – You are here
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 3: 7 Key Practical Strategies
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 4: Correcting The Imbalances

References:

1. King, I., 2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation (DVD).

2. King, I., 2002, Heavy Metal Q & A, T-mag.com, 30 Oct.

3. King, I., 2009, Barbells & Bullshit, p.94.

4. King, I., 1999/2000, Foundations of physical preparation, Relative application of the principle of specificity to the dominant physical qualities p.35, Fig 4.

Photos courtesy of Shutterstock.

The post Unilateral Leg Training, Part 2: Challenging the Overreaction appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

The purpose of this article is understand how we arrived at this point of popularity in single leg training, gain clarity of the intent and benefits of single leg training, evaluate whether the popularity and direction of single leg training is warranted, and provide insights into how you can optimize this training modality.

All parts of these series:

• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 1: Historical Perspectives – You are here
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 2: Challenging The Overreaction
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 3: 7 Key Practical Strategies
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 4: Correcting The Imbalances

As someone who has made a significant contribution to the single leg training trend, I am taking this opportunity to clarify certain aspects that many may not be aware of and provide specific guidance from my perspective on this now dominant training modality.

Historical Perspectives on Single Leg Training

As difficult as it may be to imagine for someone who entered the strength training arena post 2000, single leg training has gained in popularity only since the turn of the century. There is no doubt that single leg exercises have a long history in physical training. However in the western world of training during the decades leading into the turn of the century (2000 AD) there was little if any attention, focus or application of them in what we could call mainstream strength training.

You may have found some abstract application such as specific sports applying them e.g. martial arts, dance and gymnastics, however conventional strength training for the most part eschewed them. The Eastern Bloc countries may have been more receptive, with authors such as Hartmann, Tunnemann, and Scholich referencing bodyweight and what we would call calisthenic exercises in their texts.^1,2 Essentially during the period of at least 1960 to 2000 in the Western World bodyweight exercises, including single leg exercises, were considered military training, child’s play, or exercises reserved for female exercise classes.

Anyone wanting to confirm this only need review the content of single leg training in mainstream publications and programs. The following chronicles a period of history spanning the 1960s to current, using selected publications. Note that some of these were classic publications, while others were more industry commentary. I have made comment to that extent in the footnotes for each book referenced.

• 1966 – Weight Training: No discussion of or focus on single leg exercises.³
• 1976 – The Strongest Shall Survive: Focus on bilateral compound movements.⁴
• 1982 – Keys to the Inner Universe: The traditional quad dominant single leg exercises only.⁵
• 1984 – Hatfield, F.C., 1984, Bodybuilding. ⁶
• 1987 – Designing Resistance Training Programs.⁷
• 1992 – Weight Training: No discussion of or focus on single leg exercises.⁸
• 1997 – The Poliquin Principles: No discussion of or focus on single leg exercises.⁹
• 1998 – Strength Specialization Series: I released teachings of original & unique single leg exercises in seminar, video and audio.¹⁰
• 1999 – Get Buffed!: I released sample programs integrating original and bodyweight and other single leg exercise into convention strength training program design.¹¹
• 1999 – Body for Life: Other than lunge and single leg hamstring machine curl, no discussion of or focus on single leg exercises.¹²
• 2002 – Home Workout Bible: The first signs of the ‘new trend’ of unilateral exercise awareness and inclusion of my training concepts and exercise innovations.¹³

Here’s an example of a program from a 1997 issue of Men’s Fitness. As you can see there were no single leg exercises in this program. Lunges were about the only exercise popular in program design in that era that comes anywhere near being a single leg exercise. Note this program was published about six months before I released my concepts and unique exercises in 1998.¹⁴

Stage 1: Weeks 1-4 – The ‘Bodybuilding’ Phase

A number of trends from that era are reflected in this program, specifically for the purposes of this discussion the absence of unilateral exercises. As with published texts, it would be rare to find a person publish a program post 2001-02 (allowing three years for the trend to develop post 1998/1999) that was devoid of unilateral exercises.

The above snapshot of writing on single leg exercise clearly shows unilateral or single leg exercises were not on the radar until the late 1990s when I began sharing my training concepts and innovations developed during the prior twenty years of coaching and training. From 2002 onward, it would be a brave author who didn’t include focus on unilateral training and some of my unique and original bodyweight exercises in their publication.

Unfortunately due to loose referencing, the origin of this increased focus on unilateral training, the art of integrating these exercises with more conventional exercises, and the origin of these unique exercises, has been diluted. One of my concerns with this is that the true intent and context of these training methods and exercises has also been lost.

Something Missing in Strength Training

I began physical coaching in 1980, and by late in the 1980s I had concluded something was missing in the dominant paradigms of strength training. The focus was on compound heavy loaded movements – for everyone, all the time. This meant athletes who really didn’t need loading or compound movements were being exposed and expected to do them. If you were a golfer, you did double leg barbell squats and power cleans, just like a football player would.

Here are some examples:

• Assessment – “…Functional strength tests for the lower body include squatting 1-1.5 times bodyweight or squatting 5 repetitions at 60% of bodyweight in 5 seconds or less….”¹⁵
• Basketball – “…We love the squat and try to progress everyone to it as soon as possible….we also incorporate back extensions, Romanian deadlifts, leg curls, lunges, single –leg squats, leg curls, lunges single-leg squats, heel raises, step=ups, and other lower body exercises…”¹⁶
• Cycling – “…Exercises such as the power clean, back squat, and plyometric drills are good activities for sprint cycling…”¹⁷
• Jiu Jitsu – “….Core exercises include basic multi-joint strength (squat, bench press) and power (power clean, push press, snatch). Assistance exercises include single joint ones…. (leg extension, arm curl)…”¹⁸
• Snowboarding – “…After the pre-requisite strength is obtained, Olympic lifts, plyometrics and optimal power jumps…The clean is the primary Olympic lift used…”¹⁹
• Older Populations – “…some resistance training exercises such as maximum squats, deadlifts and leg presses result in extremely high PB values….Many of the risks of resistance training can be avoided by stressing proper training guidelines…The actual program used for older people is not much different than that used for younger people…”²⁰

In a review of the six issues of the 1998 NSCA Journal year, I could not find a single reference to a single leg that was what I categorized in my Lines of Movement concept as hip dominant exercises. The only single leg exercises I could find were the squat, bench steps (neither of which I categorize as pure single leg exercises), single leg squats and single leg leg presses. All four of these exercises were what I defined as quad dominant exercises.²¹

Periodization of Strength

To give further historical insight into the focus on compound loaded movement, a historical insight into strength periodization is valuable. The dominant strength sub-qualities during the 1980s, including the influence of the significant contributor Tudor Bompa, were limited to the following:

• Hypertrophy
• General strength
• Specific strength
• Maintenance^22,23

A traditional model of strength periodization is presented in the table below. This model is also obtained from the Tudor Bompa text Theory and Methodology of Training.

A traditional model for the periodization of strength.²⁴

A New Model of Strength

During the 1980s, I had reached the conclusion that something was missing. I hypothesized that control and stability drills needed to be integrated seamlessly into strength training program design and periodization. After a number of years of confirming the effectiveness of this strategy, I began to teach my unique model of the strength qualities from the early 1990s, where I proposed that stability and control be treated as sub-qualities of strength.^25,26,27

I proposed this model or inclusion of control and stability as an alternative to the dominant model proposed by Bompa, which contained no reference to or inclusion of control and stability as a strength sub-quality, nor did it present the strength sub-qualities in the organization structure I proposed consistently since.28,29

The following alternative model for the periodization of strength is perhaps not as different to the traditional model as the alternative speed periodization model was to the traditional speed periodization model. The model I present takes into account a greater range of strength qualities. Literally applied, this model presents training as progressing in the sequence shown below. To implement this model will require an understanding of the theory and methods of developing control and stability.

An alternative model for the periodization of strength.

This shaped the consistent model I have been teaching for the last twenty plus years:

• Control and stability
• Hypertrophy and general strength
• Maximal strength
• Explosive power
• Quickness and stretch-shortening cycle (SSC)
• Strength endurance

Proposing Practical Solutions

I shared my concerns with this hyper-focus on loaded bilateral compound movements and the absence of progression from more isolated unilateral exercises from the 1990s onwards:

Not only does the excessive focus on loading have questionable superior transfer, it also involves greater injury risks for a number of reasons. Firstly, higher loading may result in a higher incidence of trauma e.g. torn muscles, ligaments. Secondly, the added loading increases joint wear, which over time will accumulate and manifest as an ‘injury’. Thirdly, the athlete will inevitably compromise technique to lift heavier, and develop muscle imbalances as a result.³¹

I formed a hypothesis that loading was being overused, that it was over-rated.³² I combined this with an awareness of the need to ensure bilateral strength balance: “In short, this movement gives you an opportunity to development unilateral strength and gain muscle balance feedback regarding joint stability.”³²

And I began to develop a range of single leg exercises.

During the 1980s, I developed concerns about muscle imbalances epidemic in the dominant approach to strength training and sought a solution that I could use to analysis and teach a more balanced approach to strength training. In essence, in relation to the lower body there was a glaring absence of exercises to balance out the squat, lunge, leg press, etc.

I continued to test and refine my solution to this imbalance challenge, and late in the 1990s began teaching it more openly. I called it the Lines of Movement concept:

Now I am going to show you how I break the muscle groups up:

Lower body:

• Quad dominant
• Hip dominant

Upper body:

• Horizontal plane push
• Horizontal plane pull
• Vertical plane push
• Vertical plane pull³³

I provided this clear teaching about muscle balance in lines of movement:

Balance: all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body. For example for every upper body exercise there would be a lower body exercise. For every upper body pushing movement, there would be an upper body pulling movement. For every vertical pushing movement there would be a vertical pulling movement. For every hip dominant exercise there would be a quad dominant exercise. And so on.³⁴

In relation to the lower body, I wrote:

Historically the focus in lower body strength training has been on the quads, and quadricep dominant exercises such as the squat. This has been OK for say bodybuilders, whose worst case scenario is to have poor posterior leg muscle development. Even in track and field you will find authors admitting that during the 70’s the focus in power development in sprinters etc. was via leg extension as opposed to hip extension. If you take this fault in program design and training into strength training for athletes in general, the price can be a lot higher. It is my belief that an imbalance between quad dominant and hip dominant exercises where quad dominance is superior results in a significantly higher incidence of injury and a

detraction from performance.³⁵

Challenges in Developing Unilateral Leg Exercise Options

In addition to the lack of hip dominant exercises on offer, there were virtually no hip dominant unilateral leg options. Basically the only single leg exercises used during the 1960-1990 era were the lunge and bench steps, which in my opinion not fully unilateral movements.

In addition to the lack of options, there was some inclusion of single leg squats in weightlifting programs, but this was not mainstream. The first challenge was there were an inadequate number of exercises. The second challenge was that these exercises were a quad dominant exercise.

Solutions in Unilateral Leg Exercise Options

So I set about innovating and renaming exercises more popular in other arenas as my range of single leg exercises that provided balance between quad and hip dominant options. Here are some examples of my exercise innovations:

Related: The Best Leg Workouts

You can see from the above that I innovated more hip dominant movements to counter what I saw as an existing bias towards quad dominant options.

Sharing the Single Leg Training Concepts

I first released these single leg training options in the late 1990s. First, in my 1998 Strength Specialization seminar tour of Australia, of which Australian strength coach Andrew Read was in attendance. This seminar was then released in DVD and audio format. Further to that, I shared a generic twelve-week program incorporating these single leg exercises in my 1999 book Get Buffed! and the 1999 T-Mag (now T-Nation) programs (hard copy and online) known as the Limping programs.³⁶

This was the first time anyone had proposed to the hard core, male-oriented, strength training fraternity that they should do single leg training integrated into their strength programs and still get the results they sought. You can see in the words of the T-Nation editor TC Louma in his introduction that he felt the need to encourage people to be open minded and give them a go:

The following article is Part I of a two-part leg training article that’s very different from anything you’ve ever done. How so? Well, for starters, some of the exercises don’t even require you to use any weight beyond that of what you’ve got piled on top of your hip bonesand dressed up in a Tommy Hilfiger shirt. Secondly, this workout has a nasty side effect. It hurts. Real bad.

Cast aside your skepticism and try the following workout this week. Part II will follow next week. Alternate between the two workouts for a period of three weeks or so. If it isn’t everything Ian says it is, and if you don’t think it’s all that tough, keep doing things the old-fashioned way. Of course, if it is everything Ian says.³⁷

This is how I introduced the programs:

The following is a hip dominant routine that balances out the previous quad dominant routine. This workout contains even more “unique” exercises, including some of my own creation – if I do say so myself, it took a very creative mind to arrive at some of them! But they weren’t developed out of a drive to create something different for the sake of being different. They were born out of a desire to ensure that equal emphasis is placed on the upper thigh musculature.³⁸

Conclusion – Acceptance and More

Within a few years of 1998 when I began publishing my ideas on single leg training, the strength training fraternity had embraced the concepts and options. In the years post 2000, a number of new “experts” were born who touted the benefits of the new “functional” approach to leg training, some of whom were touting the dominant trend in the prior decade.

Within a decade of releasing these unique unilateral leg exercise no one would require the disclaimer used by the T-Nation editor. For example, the twelve-week Get Buffed!/Limping program reappeared in full in the November 2011 Issue of Muscle and Fitness. The only problem was now it had a new author! (Perhaps they were feeling very bulletproof about copyright infringement.)

In the sixteen years since I initiated this trend, not only has unilateral leg training gained mainstream support, we have also – in my opinion – witnessed what I describe in my original saying that humans over-react in the short-term to a new trend. I will address these issues in part two Challenging The Overreaction.

All parts of these series:

• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 1: Historical Perspectives – You are here
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 2: Challenging The Overreaction
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 3: 7 Key Practical Strategies
• Unilateral Leg Training, Part 4: Correcting The Imbalances

References:

1. Hartmann, J., and Tunnemann, H., 1989, Fitness and Strength Training for All Sports, Sportsverlag, Berlin.

2. Scholich, M., 1986, Circuit Training for All Sports, Sportsverlag, Berlin.

3. Rasch, P.J., 1966, Weight Training, Wm. C Brown Company Publishers, Iowa, USA. A classic early text.

4. Starr, B., 1976, The Strongest Shall Survive, Port City Press, Maryland, USA. I rate this as the best book I have ever read on strength training for sport.

5. Pearl, B., 1982, Keys to the Inner Universe, Typecraft Incorporated, CA., USA. A true timeless classic providing readers with exercise education.

6. Hatfield, F.C., 1984, Bodybuilding – A scientific approach, Contemporary Books, Illinois, US. A classic book reflecting a mix of practical experience and science of the time.

7. Fleck, S.J., and Kraemer, W.J., 1987, Designing Resistance Training Programs, Human Kinetics, Illinios, USA. A reflection of the dominant science perspectives of that time.

8. Baechle, T.R., and Earle, R.W., 1992, Weight Training – Steps to Success, Leisure Press, Illinois, USA. A reflection of US strength & conditioning paradigms of that era.

9. Poliquin, C., 1997, The Poliquin Principles, Dayton Publishing, CA., US. The first book to publish my Speed of Movement concept, and different to the post 2000 authors and publishers, the author referenced the origin.

10. King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series DVD/Audio, King Sports International, Brisbane AUS. Content that changed the way the world did strength training.

11. King, I., 1999, Get Buffed (book), p. 77

12. Phillips, B., 1999, Body for Life, Harper Collins, NY US. A book that took transformation programs mainstream.

13. Schuler, L, and Mejia, M., Men’s Health Home Workout Bible 2002, Rodale, USA. These books are little more than industry commentary, publishing trends. Not surprising therefore these authors picked up on the ‘new trends’ – reference to my Lines of Movement concept (unreferenced), a number of pages dedicated to the new buzzword ‘uni-lateral’, and inclusion (unreferenced) of some of my exercise innovations.

14. King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series DVD/Audio, King Sports International, Brisbane AUS. Content that changed the way the world did strength training.

15. Ebben, W.P., and Watts, P.B., 1998, “A review of combined weight training and plyometric training modes: complex training,” NSCA J, Vol 20(5):18-27

16. Owens, J., 1998, Strength training for basketball building post players, NSCA J, Vol 20(1):16-21

17. Graham, J.F., 1998, Strength training for elite sprint cyclists, NSCA J, Vol 20(4):53-60

18. Ratamess, N.A., 1998, “Weight training for jiu jitsu“, NSCA J, Vol 20(5):8-15

19. Kipp, W.R., 1998, “Physiological analysis and training for snowboard’s half pipe event“, NSCA J, Vol 20(4):8-12

20. Hedrick, A., 1998, Resistance training with older populations: Justifications benefits, protocols, NSCA J, Vol 20(2):32-39

21. King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series (DVD)

22.King, I., 1993, Multi-year Periodization of Strength, A presentation at the Resistance Training Seminar for the Australian Coaching Council High Performance Course, Australian Institute of Sport, Canberra, 11-12 October.

23. King, I., 1995, Periodization, ASCA Seminar Series, Brisbane 11 April 1995, p. 10.

24. King, I., 1999/2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation (course/book), p. 75

25. King, I., 1993, Multi-year Periodization of Strength, A presentation at the Resistance Training Seminar for the Australian Coaching Council High Performance Course, Australian Institute of Sport, Canberra, 11-12 October.

26. King, I., 1994, Strength training for tennis, Seminar presented to Tennis Professionals Queensland, Sunday 27th Nov 1994

27. King, I., 1995, Periodization, ASCA Seminar Series, Brisbane 11 April 1995, p. 10.

28. King, I., 1995, Periodization, ASCA Seminar Series, Brisbane 11 April 1995, p. 10.

29. King, I., 1994, Strength training for tennis, Seminar presented to Tennis Professionals Queensland, Sunday 27th Nov 1994

30. King, I., 1999/2000, Foundations of Physical Preparation (course/book), p. 75

31. King, I., 1997, Winning and Losing, p. 44-45

32. King, I., 2000, Heavy Metal Q & A, t-mag.com, 12 April 2000

33. King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series (DVD), Disc 3, approx 1hr 03m 00sec in.

34. King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs, p. 38

35. King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Exercises (book), p. 99

36. King, I, 1999, “Twelve Weeks of Pain, Part I – Limping into October“, T-nation.com, Fri, Sep 17

37. TC Louma, Editor T-mag.com, Sep 17 1999, in the introduction to my workout A in my unique bodyweight based strength and bodybuilding program, a pioneer program at that time.

38. King, I., 1999, “Limping into October Pt 2” (now showing as ‘Hardcore Leg Training – Part 2’) T-mag.com, Fri, Sep 24, 1999

Images courtesy of Everkinetic.

The post Unilateral Leg Training, Part 1: Historical Perspectives appeared first on Breaking Muscle.