The antagonist in our modern-day narrative is sugar. This devilish poison sits at the center of an eternal battle, as it tempts and tortures more than 66 percent of society with demonic allure.

The Modern Crusade

Every great story also requires a protagonist, and the modern mythology of nutrition is no exception. The heroes of the nutritional pantheon are “superfoods.” These caped crusaders act as guardian angels and protectors of our health. We are instructed to worship these foods and use them as medicine to enhance our vitality and extend our longevity.

It has become a battle of Biblical proportions.

Don’t let the pretty colors fool you. This cake is trying to kill you. Food Babe said so.

When a hero is faced with danger, his supporting cast rallies in support. In contemporary narratives, a community defends their hero in long, unresolved comment threads on social media.

Online activists like Food Babe and her followers (appropriately named the Food Babe Army) have declared war against food companies. They claim to be fighting for the health and wellbeing of the poor and unfortunate souls who are exposed to chemicals, antibiotics, and GMOs, oh my! Armed with arguments from ignorance, naturalistic fallacies, and misinterpreted facts, they use scare tactics to threaten and bully companies into changing well-established safe practices and cutting evil profit margins.

A New Front in the War

The latest war banner has been flown by CrossFit, Inc., which issued its own call-to-arms in the onslaught against sugar, specifically the sugary beverage industry. They are neither the first nor the last to do so, but they may be the most aggressive.

With investigative-style press releases and trolling skills that are the envy of presidential campaigns, they have rallied the fitness industry to take up their torches and pitchforks and bring Coca-Cola to the metaphorical noose. Their multifaceted strategy attacks donation trails, advertising campaigns targeting children, and provides scientific “proof” that sugar is dangerous.

As with any great mythological story, there is a kernel of truth at the center. Not all of CrossFit’s attacks on Coca-Cola are unfounded, and the public has a right to the facts they’ve brought to light. The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has had a semi-unethical relationship with the beverage company.

But there is an underlying motive for CrossFit’s fervor, and it’s not just the noble love of those affected negatively by the diabolical agent of diabetic destruction that is sucrose. Coke and the ACSM are lobbying for regulation of fitness professionals that would affect CrossFit’s business model by requiring additional certification fees in order to own, operate, and work in one of the thousands of CrossFit affiliates. This is a battle about the bottom line, as much as it is about the waistline.

The horror!

Deconstructing the Myth

Arguing the relative health value of food is misleading. Most people would agree that a Snickers bar is “junk food,” based on its high sugar content and the chemicals used to keep it fresh. Using the same logic, kale is regarded as one of the healthiest, nutrient-dense superfoods we can consume, leading people to suck it down in liquid form like the hipster version of a wheatgrass shot.

But health can only be defined in context of the individual. For a starving child on the verge of death because of malnutrition, which of the two products described above would be “healthier?” The healthiest option is arguably the one that packs the most usable energy and keeps you alive. The “junk food,” in this context, becomes life-saving junk food. Maybe even health food, if health is defined as staying alive.

This scenario is not so farfetched. In fact, the use of candy bars as life-saving nutrition is well documented, from famine in West Africa, to the internment camps of World War II, to the battlefields of Vietnam, Korea. Some might argue that these are extreme examples, but they are no more so than the dramatic correlations being used by people who demonize sugar.

There is not a single cause that leads to poor health, but it is easy to demonize a whole group of things using fear. On its own, sugar is neither a “health food” nor the devil incarnate. It is the abuse of sugar by people who are already dysfunctional and sedentary that is linked to countless health problems. That abuse can be considered a predictor for future dysfunctions, such as Alzheimer’s disease and cancer.

What Is Toxicity?

Beneath the slander and social media shenanigans lies the core question: “Is sugar really toxic?” 

That depends. First, we have to define the type of toxicity: acute or chronic. This distinction takes us away from the realm of fear-mongering news headlines and into a world of more objective science. Water can be fatally “toxic,” but it, like everything else, is dose dependent. Unlike some over-the-counter pharmaceuticals like aspirin, sugar is not acutely toxic, meaning you cannot ingest enough in one sitting to cause death.

However, sufficient research suggests sugar is chronically toxic, meaning that consistent dosing in excess of recommended amounts is harmful. Along with specific lifestyle factors, chronic abuse of sugar reduces the function of the liver by bombarding hepatocytes (liver cells). This negatively affects the metabolism by forcing it to constantly produce insulin, which severely taxes the pancreas and creates a vicious cycle of overuse.

This is where lifestyle factors and genetic predisposition (i.e., individual context) come into play. Everyone processes “toxins” differently. Some lifetime smokers have no sign of lung cancer, and there are alcoholics with zero liver dysfunction. Conversely, many have overdosed on recommended amounts of drugs prescribed by physicians. The trick is to figure out your sensitivity to sugar and then delineate appropriately.

Context Is Everything

Rather than adopting a nonsensical zero-tolerance policy, it is useful to think of sugar like alcohol: a treat that can enhance an experience. It’s much the same as a glass of whiskey with an old friend, or a birthday cake with your daughter, or hell – even a Coca-Cola on a five-hour bike ride in the middle of nowhere. These things are what make life worth living, even for people concerned with physical fitness and health. Yes, they can be abused. No, they are not toxic, in those contexts.

This cyclist is not going to become a diabetic or get cancer from the sugary drink in his hand.

Dr. Peter Attia is the founder of Attia Medical, PC, a medical practice focusing on the applied science of longevity and optimal performance. His perspective of the war on sugar is profound:

“What I find frustrating about this debate is that most people yelling and screaming don’t fully define the terms… The wrong question is being asked. “Is sugar toxic?” is a silly question. Why? Because it lacks context. Is water toxic? Is oxygen toxic? These are equally silly questions… Both oxygen and water are essential for life (sugar, by the way, is not). But both oxygen and water are toxic – yes, lethal – at high enough doses.”

At some point, anything you ingest can be toxic, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be useful, or even life-saving. Sugar is no stranger to sports performance. Coca-Cola has helped sustain energy among many world champion athletes and, as hard as it is to believe, is still used intra-effort because of its palatability at high intensity. This quality may also be what adds to its danger and over-consumption, especially in children.

The Real Battle Is for Your Wallet

Regardless of your stance on sugar, one thing is true: it is worthy of a metaphorically divine battle. And that battle is always about money, not health. If you care about health and the effect nutrition has on the human species, remove the most useless human invention that we so readily attach to food: our own narrative.

More on the Great Sugar Debate:

• Breaking Down the CrossFit, #SugarKills, and Coke Debate
• Chemically Defining Sugars: Is All Sugar Simply “Sugar?”
• Why Natural Sugars Aren’t Any Better Than Artificial Sugars
• New on Breaking Muscle Today

Photos courtesy of Michael Blevins.

The post Where Sweets and Satan Collide appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

People love to talk about the apocalypse. Maybe it’s a useful way to sort out the important issues, the non-starters and non sequiturs. Perhaps it helps them to think critically and objectively. Some even go so far as to say they are “training for the apocalypse.” They say it as something between a half-hearted joke and full-bore paranoia.

For the purpose of determining how functional and transferable your fitness is, we are going to use the proverbial zombie apocalypse, despite its glorification and unlikeliness. Besides, both the CDC and the Department of Defense have used the apocalypse to evaluate their preparedness and structure, so I think it’s fair to run hypotheticals using it as well.

So how do you train for the apocalypse? It may shock you to find out that after all the years and copious hours you’ve spent trying to attain the most impressive 1-rep max numbers known to mankind, you’re no more fit for survival than you were when you started.

This scenario may be as unlikely as that outfit, but it’s a useful mental exercise anyway.

Your Big Bench Press Won’t Save You

Let’s start big and kill this notion first: “Being stronger makes you harder to kill.” No, it does not. A person with a 300lb deadlift and another person with an 800lb deadlift both encounter the same mortality when a 7.62mm round from a high-velocity rifle canoes their heads. If strength truly made you harder to kill, our military elite would train exclusively at Westside Barbell (they don’t).

Most people would agree, if caught in an epic, end-of-the world, Mad Max, zombie-eating-faces scenario, they would appreciate help from some hard-hitting CAG operator, Navy Seal, or SAS, and that having them around would increase the chance of survival. When looking for optimal models of survivability, few could surpass elite military operators. 

Elite units recognize the importance of strength training, especially in context of strength-endurance. But they all recognize a far more important physical ability when they have to load an 80lb rucksack and trek for twelve hours before engaging with a target. That ability is efficiency.

A large majority of military training is spent making soldiers efficient. They run, ruck, swim, and do hours of calisthenics on very little food and even less rest. The training environment allows soldiers to adapt, so they are ready when “being harder to kill” really matters.

At no time during selection of the world’s most elite fighting forces do they suit up a double ply, belt, and wraps and test who has the highest 1RM back squat.

I’m not trying to demonize strength training. A basic level of strength is required for most endurance activities. I also believe that chasing large 1-rep maxes outside of specific sport preparation is a lousy definition of functional strength training. Even on the rare occasion that maximal strength becomes relevant in the real world, you’re unlikely to encounter a handy 28mm knurled diameter that works perfectly for your grip.

In this respect, I commend those who know their own ability when it comes to farmer’s carries or fat bar deadlifts. At least these lifts serve a function, even if they are still contrived and artificial.

What’s the most useful survival item here? (Hint: it’s the running shoes.)

Stop Eating Everything

At some point early on in our hypothetical zombie outbreak, the need to eat will arise. If you take your nutritional advice from the experts of Instagram, you’re probably not going to make it. A common trend among athletes is to consume more and more calories in order to get lean. This is the exact opposite of efficiency.

Consuming food in abundance to fuel specific efforts may improve top-end performance, but it also makes our bodies expensive metabolically. 

All the time you spent “stoking the engine” and “feeding the machine” will have turned you into a pathetic waste when it comes to survival. You have all but turned off your body’s ability to conserve energy, and in doing so reduced the amount of work you can do without fuel.

Survival is dependent on limiting exposure to nature, finding water and food sources, and rationing that source for as long as possible. Survival is rarely about confrontation with an opponent. That illusion is only true if you realize the opponent is yourself. In this respect, survival and training for physical fitness are the same.

Get Small, Go Far

Endurance is key to surviving the apocalypse. Being able to travel far, fast, and on little fuel could be the difference between making it out of a crowded cannibalistic city and watching your stomach skin get turned into a lampshade by a depraved, diseased roommate.

If your goal is to be harder to kill, you should weigh less, consume less, and try your hardest to remember that splint wrap technique from your sophomore sports medicine class.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the average male special operations somatotype is around 185lb. If you need more convincing, consider this: the strongest humans are usually some of the biggest, which means they require the most food and the most time to move. A slower target is an easier target.

Bigger people are also an inconvenience when they are injured. It seems really cool to be the “big guy” until you twist your ankle and the group responsible for carrying you starts debating on how important you really are. Should they use a crockpot or an open spit to roast your well-developed glutes?

How should you train for the end of the world? Learn to go very far, on very little fuel.

Survival Is Not a 6-Minute AMRAP

Someone will no doubt throw out, “CrossFit trains you for the unknown and unknowable!” I have no problem with this idea, except that I’m pretty sure our species never survived the past 200,000 years because of their ability to do butterfly pull ups.

Survival efforts are sometimes longer than eleven minutes, which is the length of an average CrossFit workout.

You can probably count on one hand the number of times the CrossFit main site has prescribed efforts over ninety minutes in the past decade. If the unknown is a 50km trek with weight, the average CrossFitter might have hedged their bets incorrectly on overhead weighted pistols.

The Slowest One Gets Eaten

The biggest question to answer in determining your chances of surviving the zombie apocalypse is this: How much of your training is actually functional, and how much of it is a joke? 

This is not a defense of “cardio bunnies,” nor an op-ed to bash strength training. What it might be is a fantastical look at the most basic human movement: the ability to run far, fast, and efficiently. When you consider the functional aspects of training that are also major constituents to survival, it becomes obvious that running is one of the biggest. No other human ability enables you to escape the terrifying attacks of deranged mega fauna.

So next time your friend or gym partner complains that running hurts their knees and they are opting for the elliptical or a Venice Beach-style workout, you can smile and know there will be one more piece of human fodder that can be put between you the approaching zombie horde. You don’t have to be the fastest, but you sure as shit can’t be the slowest.

More Ways to Become Harder to Kill

• Be Strong to Be Helpful: Movement Skills Are Survival Skills
• You Are Not Prepared: How to Survive a Life-or-Death Situation
• Real Functional Fitnesss: CrossFit and the Battle Against Cancer

Photos courtesy of Michael Blevins.

The post How to Train for the Zombie Apocalypse appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

We can now move on to one of the more misunderstood concepts: macronutrients.

There Is No Such Thing as a Bad Macro

The macronutrients (protein, fat, and carbohydrates) make up the next most influential category by which we modify body composition, increase performance, or influence hormonal fluctuations. But all three of them have been the scapegoat of obesity and deteriorating health at some point. With access to easy information also comes the risk of bad information, resulting in dogmatic belief and evangelical fervor – all of which will most likely appear in the comments that follow this article.

Low-fat, low-carb, paleo, vegan, and vegetarian practices have relied on villainizing one of these fundamental nutritional properties. Yet despite the fact that each camp claims the “secret” to nutritional wisdom, we see results with every one of them. That’s because there is no such thing as a “bad” or “unhealthy” macronutrient – only the most efficient for the task at hand. 

Case in Point: Vegetarianism

Without going further, and because inevitably someone will comment about “what worked for me,” we have to assess how these fads came to be so popular. Against my better judgment, and at the risk of feeding the trolls, I will have this discussion hoping to at least preempt the argument for the [fill in the blank] diet.

Forty years ago, vegetarianism became a fad when its followers saw huge improvements in the realm of weight loss. Whether their success was due to an ethical calling or some kook-chiropractor casting yeast (probably under its more academic name, candida albicans) as a disease, the practice and results of vegetarianism increased in popularity. For many, switching to a typical vegetarian diet nearly halved the amount of calories ingested.

It didn’t hurt that the waste product of soy-based paints (soy protein) was now a sellable food item (tofu). Soy protein was also the most profitable division of the international company Glidden Paints. The soy market grew exponentially, which appealed to its valued target customer: The Vegetarian, also known as your older sister or brother, who always wore the same old Joy Division tee shirt and became exasperated in the presence of a T-bone steak.

Vegetarianism works for fat loss, often because it results in a drastic caloric intake reduction.

I remember a vegan friend of mine ordering a cheeseburger from Wendy’s in the late 1990’s. He removed the burger, the cheese, and the mayonnaise and tossed them from the car window as we drove back to our high school during lunch break. I laughed, but I also understood the PETA propaganda videos were powerful. They made our generation feel like we were part of a revolution.

At the implementation of any new fad diet or constriction, availability is limited. For vegetarians or especially vegans, it was nearly impossible to eat out fifteen years ago. Then markets like Whole Foods hit the scene, offering the ethically conscious consumer any variety of vegan cookies, ice creams, and other baked goods.

Copy and paste this process and just fill in the blank with the title of any fad diet book. 

The Modern-Day Scapegoat: Sugar

One current scapegoat for obesity is sugar. Abusing sugar causes some (misunderstood) abnormalities in the body, due in part to the stress it places on our pancreas and the resulting insulin resistance. But this does not make sugar in any natural form (fructose, glucose, sucrose) evil or villainous.

Just as lifting weights can improve your health when dosed appropriately, sugar has its own benefits. For example, over-training can be treated with none other than sugar or other forms of simple carbohydrates. That’s because glucose is efficient at promoting not only protein synthesis and positive neurotransmitter enhancement (serotonin and dopamine), but also hydration and glycogen storage responsible for performance in most sports. Notwithstanding the First Lady’s indignation, sugar should not be categorized based on emotion or with religious zeal. It is a tool that can actually be used to improve fitness and, consequently, health.

Many groups will give advice to avoid sugar based on what is “natural” to our species, making generalizations regarding evolution. They might purport that we have survived for millennia off of large quantities of fat and very little carbohydrates, usually referring to one civilization: the Inuit. They are right – that has happened. But to characterize “natural” as homologous with good doesn’t take into consideration just how “unnatural” medicine is, or the use of the Internet, for that matter. And yet because of these two “unnatural” technological advancements (medicine and communication), we have far exceeded the life expectations of our “natural” ancestors.

The problem with making a villain out of anything we ingest on a normal basis is that it presumes to provide a black-and-white answer to our grey world. This approach polarizes a subject that is not fully understood, often due merely to personal bias.

There is no such thing as a bad macronutrient. Humans have survived on some, none, or all of the macros in varying civilizations throughout our known history. Our responsibility is to understand the best combination for our personal context.

Is this the perfect macronutrient dish? That depends.

Points of Agreement

At this point, let’s all agree that a blend of the three macronutrients with maximum micronutrient density, all within the boundaries of a controlled total caloric intake, is the best start to any nutritional program. This is the case regardless of the context or the goal.

How to mix and match is particular to the individual. This means you need personal experimentation and, most of all, consistency in order to figure it out. There is no magical ratio. 

We can also affirm the following to be true of each macronutrient:

• Carbohydrates fuel both activity and recovery and have been proven to be most efficient at doing so. But carbs are not a savior or an answer to our lack of vital energy, like some ultra-endurance junkies will have you believe.
• Protein is our body’s building block and provides the necessary amino acids for tissue repair, among many other things. But it does not need to be over-emphasized like it has been in bodybuilding trends, which often recommend as much as 2g per pound of body weight.
• Fat is responsible for the functioning of multiple systems, and should not be habitually avoided. Hormonally, it signals a host of processes that are vital for satiety and testosterone production. But we don’t need to over-compensate for our past avoidance of it by guzzling bacon fat, as the ketogenic crowd might have you believe.

Find the Best Approach for You

It is certainly intelligent to seek out the highest quality of food available. That being said, no person I know or have worked with is devoid of taste buds, and anyone who claims to only eat high-quality food is either lying, or a martyr who consumes beef liver and other highly nutritious organ meats with every meal.

Some goals, like lean mass gain or elite performance in sports, may even be deterred by eating large amounts of certain high-quality foods. The gut has to accommodate the added stress of assimilating micronutrients and fiber, which it cannot do during intense exercise or when attempting to consume more than needed (which is required to gain mass). Hence the fuel of choice for most athletes during and after hard effort is a combination of simple carbohydrates like glucose, fructose, or in some cases, non-sugars like fractionated barely extract or waxy maze.

An easy way to contend with quality control, other than using some esoteric and arbitrary rule such as “organic” or “local” (which in reality do not always improve nutritional density) is to get some accurate data: your personal blood work. Most insurance companies will cover it, and if not, it is usually reasonably priced. Seeing any deficiencies firsthand will give you a precise guide for your food and supplement choices, as opposed to the shotgun approach of massively over-dosing multivitamins and minerals.

With the combination of caloric control and smart macronutrient partitioning, you might find enough control to attain your goals and the body composition you have dreamed about. But there is one more factor that greatly affects your success in controlling nutrition. In part three, I will uncover what leads to most dieting failures: temperament.

More No-Bull Nutrition Advice:

• Quit Your Diet: A Sustainable Approach to Lasting Results
• Your Diet Needs a Reality Check
• Your Diet Is Not Normal: Here’s Why
• New on Breaking Muscle Today

Photos courtesy of Michael Blevins.

The post Let’s Talk About Diet, Part 2: Macronutrients appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

I am told I should try and grab your attention in the first line, which I will later tone down to make a more reasonable point. This is because human behavioral studies show people are more likely to participate out of negativity or objection rather than agreement. You only need to look at the comments section of a controversial YouTube video to confirm this.

The struggle to better ourselves is characteristically human.

The Internet Is Playing Dumb

The sad part about this guidance on my ability to attract readership is that it’s true. You can’t make a point if no one will read about it. I’m told not to exceed 1,400 words because you’re too impatient to develop an idea beyond that, in the literary sense. This is precisely why people scour the Internet and click on the easy-to-read answers to fitness problems.

Reading and deciphering 1,200+ pages of Verkhoshansky requires time and usually a really good reason to do so. The Lore of Running by Professor Tim Noakes will clear up hundreds of thousands of questions pertaining to multiple disciplines.But the general population won’t make it through the almost 1,000 pages, because it isn’t broken down into bullet points and sold to you in a conducive time scale.

“6 Ways to See Your Abs by Summer” is written specifically for the person who will never see their abs – ever. “10 Tricks to Fix Your Squat” won’t work for you because you’re too busy trying to trick-fuck your way to an impressive number by reading garbage instead of squatting. It’s not that these articles don’t have pertinent information, as the authors are generally well-regarded, but the information is a BB gun in a world that requires a high-powered sniper rifle.

Define Your Purpose

So despite my disdain in writing a short “list to fix” article, I am not disingenuous, and I do have one reason why these articles provide next to nothing for you.

You won’t answer your fitness problems with an infographic or a convenient list. You need a change in your intention.

Most people have no real reason why they do the things they do. Why do you want a six-pack? Why do you need to be stronger, and how strong is strong enough? We have to dig deeper into the reasons why, beyond the attention we might receive from posting a well-lit bathroom selfie. Our longevity depends on it.

We want to move because it will improve the brain. This struggle to better ourselves is characteristically human. With nothing more than inane effort, we make insignificant progress – or worse, we become insignificant people.

This progress only occurs with underlying purpose. There is a reason Nietzsche quotes are scattered over motivational fitness pictures. It’s because they carry intent, fortitude, and are inarguably brilliant. The greatest feats by human beings have had drastic philosophical purpose, so it follows that you should design your efforts to have the same meaningful aspiration.

Train in a way that allows you to explore your own integrity, and then do not quit.

Do Not Quit

Life is especially defined by not quitting. Our practice of this quality gives training purpose and meaning. The exploits we hold in high esteem are regarded as such because they involve moving past the desire to quit and declining the self-imposed invitation to take the easier road.

A simple way to manufacture this effect in training is to give yourself a way out. Construct workouts that make you question your own ability to finish, right around the halfway mark. Train in a way that allows you to explore your own integrity, and then, simply put – do not quit.

Some old training partners and I used to enforce this rule: “If it is written, so must it be done.“ Whatever goes up on the white board must be finished, no matter how you might underestimate the work. A 1-30-1 ladder of dumbbell thrusters had us question our own sanity about two reps into the declining portion of the workout. But finishing nearly 1,000 reps in a little over two hours left no question as to whether we had intent and integrity.

Effort Is Universal

The application of intent and integrity transcends sport. It removes barriers between sub-cultures that are normally separated by cult-like affiliation. Effort is universal. The acknowledgement of this can shape your journey and open doors to many gyms, relationships, and ideas that will otherwise elude you.

What you have in common with the people who have already achieved what you wish to accomplish isn’t found in a list. It’s found in a philosophical, purposeful approach to effort.

More Like This:

• Why Do We Train?: Finding Purpose in Movement
• How to Be a Thinking Athlete: A User's Guide to the Brain
• The 5 Most Important Words for Succeeding in Fitness
• New on Breaking Muscle Today

The post 1 Reason to Stop Reading Fitness Articles Based on Numerical Lists appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

It most likely happens in social gatherings and starts with the question: “How could you transform a body like this?” This query is made as the interrogator twirls around while holding a glass of wine. Directly afterward, I watch as my new acquaintance stuffs his or her face with selections from a cheese and cracker platter. Then there is a reference to a story on a recent daytime news filler broadcast about the importance of green tea or some Amazonian fruit.

At this point, I want to throw out some made-up opinion on Palestine or population control and watch the conversation melt out of their mouth. Or, to be equally controversial, I could start to talk about calorie counting.

The most important factor in “health” as it pertains to diet is in fact quantity. Not one person on this earth can prove differently. We are a species with so many variations in adaptation that there is not “one true way” of eating, but the correlation between food quantity and health is universal to all.

The Sad State of Pop Nutrition

At this point I’m aghast at the lack of basic knowledge people have about nutrition. It seems ironic, since almost everyone has Internet access in the palm of their hand. Then again, I suppose the influx of biased information may be the reason for such widespread confusion. This genuine need for information has me hooked, and my conversational partner at the party will soon regret their decision to talk to me.

“[R]egardless of the anomalies, there are zero human beings who can survive the plight of ‘zero food.'”

If only it were possible to formally correct each and every individual on his or her delusional outlook on nutrition. But too many people will take the advice of some celebrity on TMZ and double down on the kale shakes and concentrated broccoli extract. After all, they know how to “detox” their bodies better than their liver and kidneys can. They somehow attribute fat loss with loose stool, seeking out large doses of “colon cleanses” on advisement from an expert hipster at Whole Foods, as if an ironic tattoo demonstrates anything other than poor decision-making skills. Very few consumers will come to discover the reality that the majority of fat that leaves your body is through your breath.

The One Constant Variable

Anyone who has tracked his or her caloric intake as accurately as possible will tell you that the amount of food is the constant that dictates gain or loss. It is true that caloric intake and expenditure are not 100% accurate, as we cannot account for individual entropy. And there are anomalies for sure – some caused by bad responses to certain foods, others to metabolic disruptions that slow the process of losing or gaining weight. But regardless of the anomalies, there are zero human beings who can survive the plight of “zero food.”

Keep this in mind as you consider a gluten-free diet. Thousands of people die of starvation each day (21,000, to be precise). That “metabolic damage” you read about on Facebook does not overwrite the fact that you have no idea how much you consume on a daily basis and can’t control your body composition.

Or consider the ludicrous idea that BPA causes obesity. If it were true then I guess we’ve solved the problem of world hunger. Just start shipping those old sun-bleached water bottles over to Africa. I’m sure the idea that you could get fat from drinking water would make them ecstatic.

What About Food Quality?

We must also consider the socio-economic superiority myth that the most important factor in diet is food quality. The localvores abound and inquire about the relationships and family life of the chicken they hope to consume, as joked about on Portlandia. We are told we should buy organic food, yet this increases the odds that we are exposed to e.coli, according to many studies proving that conventional purchase is just as nutritious.

And if you ever happen to be in the predicament of defending GMOs, simply plant your palm to your face. You know whoever is defending the ban on GMOs has no idea that bananas are in fact man-made, artificial selection is genetic alteration, and without GMO interference the banana will surely die from Fusarium wilt (a close relative to the plague). If this wasn’t enough, consider that not one person likes watermelon and grapes with fucking seeds in them.

Implications for Athletes

Logical mistakes from antiquity or those based on a naturalistic fallacy have made us a society of idiots. Proof in point: list an unhealthy food. Go ahead, I’ll wait. Someone inevitably will list Cheetos or a Snickers bar, as our society has fattened itself on the excess of these. But to an individual dying of starvation, both of these items will grant the gift of life, which is certainly more “healthy” than death.

“Imagine how different the consumption of the office snack room would be if Betsy from Human Resources had to write the number of brownies she consumed on a chalkboard for others to see.”

In a not-so-dramatic correlation, imagine a high-level athlete who adheres to a strict dietary choice, perhaps based off of reducing inflammation, which seems to be a common reason. After training, this athlete decides the selections of food available don’t match his neurosis-driven mania. As a result, his caloric deficiency does not allow for proper recovery, thus affecting future training. When this happens frequently enough, we find the most evangelical of dieters not sustaining levels required for competition and quickly getting passed. Catabolism then, in context of performance, is not healthy, as it is caused by a caloric deficit and improper re-feeding.

Please Don’t Misunderstand Me

This is not an excuse to eat out of a vending machine, although you could and would probably live just fine. This is a plea to do away with nonsense and stop the intensified descriptions of where and what your food is. It isn’t that these other factors are benign. Factors like the hormonal value of nutrient timing and fiber quality and quantity certainly affect you. But food quantity is the first variable to get under control.

This is what many people who give nutritional advice, myself included, will tell you. Once an individual starts tracking total intake, his or her behavior changes radically. Imagine how different the consumption of the office snack room would be if Betsy from Human Resources had to write the number of brownies she consumed on a chalkboard for others to see. Suddenly the extra effort to purchase organic, paleo, and gluten-free brownies seems ridiculous. No matter how high-quality the brownies are, Betsy has a problem with how many enter her stomach.

I am also not denying the negative and eventually neurotic effect counting calories can have if taken to the extreme, or the amount of eating disorders it causes when people are uneducated about other important factors. (These considerations will be covered in parts two and three.) But taking six months to figure out what allows you to gain, lose, and maintain your current weight will set you up for a lifetime of relief, not to mention freedom from the media’s promotion of the next diet fad.

More Like This:

• Do the Math to Make the Most of Macronutrients
• The Pivotal Role Food Plays in Your (Lack of) Performance
• Eat What You Want: Your Macros and the Truth About Carbs
• New on Breaking Muscle Today

Photos courtesy of Michael Blevins.

The post Let’s Talk About Diet, Part 1: Quantity Versus Quality appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

Uttered in disgust on and off for the previous few decades, “LSD” is usually repeated in conversations vilifying its use. After which the exoneration of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) will be thrown out much like the sweat thrown from the brow of a southern Baptist preacher at one of those Midwestern “super” churches. His organ player will hit the crescendo and we are all expected to fall from our proverbial wheelchairs as we realise the sin of going too far for too long.

Yes, we have all been told that intensity is our salvation, and that going hard is both the way and the only way to godliness. But this argument of HIIT versus LSD has been waged for the previous century. It’s just now that the same confrontation might be occurring in the organisation that most recently helped popularise the “train till we puke” mentality.

CrossFit’s Message

This has been at least the perception with which myself and many others view CrossFit. When looking back, this shift is fairly easy to see, as far back as the early 2000s the majority of CrossFit’s training championed the benefits of anaerobic training and demonised anything that pertained to long slow distance. There was almost an apologetic feel when prescribing recovery work at an easy pace, backed frequently by statements to detour: “At CrossFit we are only interested in the first two waves of adaptive response (lactate threshold and VO2 max). The third comes at great cost to your overall physical capacity. (Aerobic)

“[W]e have all been told that intensity is our salvation, and that going hard is both the way and the only way to godliness.”

The message became clear, and not just in the worshipping of the anaerobic system, but the specific demonising of its closely regarded cousin. To be fair the era of the “fat burning zone” was at its peak then, and this likely influenced the conception of CrossFit to begin with, having to overwrite the sloths in crowded globo-gyms, naively sweating away on the elliptical while reading The Daily Mail.

With this followers began their embrace of efforts of the short-sucky nature, consuming unquestioningly everything the CrossFit main site recommended. This was in large part because application of intense exercise to off-the-couch populations or perpetual endurance junkies can radically change fitness levels. This change could have been why it looks like CrossFit has correlated endurance training negatively. The downsides pertaining to endurance training are even listed in the CrossFit Level 1 manual. Some apologists of CrossFit now claim indifference to LSD, but this is in total opposition to the basic description of CrossFit often used as a tagline: “Constantly varied, high intensity, functional movement.” A description that for all intents and purposes negates the action of the long and relatively slow.

The Rise of CrossFit Endurance

Whether due to financial motivation or inspired by the natural blend found in military requirements, CrossFit eventually answered the demand by their athletes wanting to participate in endurance events. Their answer was a controversial methodology headed by Brian MacKenzie in what is now known as CrossFit Endurance. Much like the endurance community’s battle of appealing to the “time-crunched” by the likes of cyclist and triathlete Chris Carmichael, the goal for CrossFit was to appeal to those with an ADD sporting mentality. “Don’t go longer, just go faster.” For the majority of recreational athletes this model works well. The problem lies in believing you can replace distance with intensity in world-class athletic preparation.

The CrossFit Games: A New Story

Enter the CrossFit Games. A few years ago we saw the emergence and need to develop the aerobic system to a higher level as the Games introduced a version of a sprint distance triathlon and then subsequently the half marathon row. Each year they upped the ante, coming closer to what some might actually consider a test of endurance.

“It seems from a marketing standpoint, that CrossFit, Inc. specifically denotes no difference in the training and preparation for life and the training and preparation for sport.”

This year we saw a forty-plus-minute ocean event, and a forty-plus-minute “Murph” variation executed in blistering heat. The tests are still well under the ninety minute mark – the usual marker for endurance as an energy system, as the aerobic system must be aided by additional hydration and glycogen – but the inclusion of longer events, more frequently brings the aerobic system into center focus, and puts this problem in front of many of the sports’ best.

Jason Khalipa famously employed the help of Chris Hinshaw, a former Ironman championship podium-finisher and all-around knowledgeable endurance coach. Aside from enabling Jason the ability to win a few of the “endurance” events as one of the more muscular and heavier athletes, Hinshaw has gone on to work with a large number of games competitors. In a recent interview, he spoke about his methodology and the successes he has had through the use of LSD and the building of the aerobic system in even four-time champion Rich Froning, a statement that went a little under the radar, especially considering CrossFit’s relationship with endurance training.

A Difference in Degree?

This conflict leads to another question – whether or not the sport and the methodology are different? It seems from a marketing standpoint, that CrossFit, Inc. specifically denotes no difference in the training and preparation for life and the training and preparation for sport. As they have mentioned multiple times in the idioms of Greg Glassman, “Your needs and the Olympic athlete’s differ by degree not kind.”

“Fitness evangelism is the death of progress. Those who know this will sit silently by in contempt of their peers as they feel the overwhelming power of belief dissuade others from truth.”

This philosophy would actually all but excuse the use of LSD training had not CrossFit spent the first decade of their existence disparaging its use. How and what will happen when this trend at the top level reaches other spectrums of CrossFit participants? My guess is that it will be a very positive thing. In part because of my love of the sport of CrossFit, my hope for its development, and because we have seen similar evolutions in CrossFit’s past.

When CrossFIt increased the frequency of heavy Olympic lifts, the need to develop the associated strength, coordination, and speed heavily influenced what pretty much any person and/or gym associated with the brand did concerning programming. This move increased the number of top-end Olympic weightlifting athletes and coaches involved in CrossFit, as well. It was so influential that it reinvigorated the weightlifting shoe industry and revived what looked to be a dying sport. Now most programs for even the everyday CrossFit participant piggyback weightlifting-specific programs with some added conditioning. What occurred at the top level affected those not only at the middle, but those who were just starting in the sport.

Change Is Coming

If Hinshaw’s success is any indication, then we should expect to see an explosion of endurance methodology being integrated into not only the training of the top athletes and their respective followers, but also showing up on the CrossFit main site. Like everything before it, the programming will be overdone at first. I imagine the best in the sport will set precedence by posting training metrics that others will try to match. In them doing so, we will see what we experienced with the Olympic lifts in CF, as we saw with a social media fueled snatch competition between high level games athletes prior to the Games. But eventually, the additional time spent developing the lift took away other abilities and the “arms race” neutralized as the athletes experienced a point of diminishing returns, which appeared to be just over the 135 kilo mark with the snatch.

“Admitting that something works at the highest level will surely influence what happens at the lowest.”

Change is upon those who follow the sport and the basic practice of CrossFit. It is seen even with hardline advocates of the short and the intense like Brian MacKenzie. I reached out to Brian to get his thoughts on the evolution of endurance training in CrossFit. I was mostly curious about a recent interview he had done with Barbell Shrugged, in which he described finding problems with the aerobic capacity in athletes. This can be seen as fluctuations in heart rate during a staged ramp test or a prolonged efficiency test. This is known to the endurance world as cardiac drift, for which the fix is the addition of volume or more LSD.

Brian has not reformed completely, as he and I both agree the application needs context. But he is recognizing the need for a more developed aerobic ability and the benefits that go along with it, especially at the level of athletes in the Games. The amount of skill work involved with those he coaches does, in fact, add up to a similar pattern we see when applying LSD to elite training – 70-80% of training volume will be less than 80% effort. This rule of thumb becomes very supportive of the intense effort required for greater fitness and happens to be very well researched.

End Fitness Evangelism

It seems now that the fight shouldn’t be what CrossFit is or what it isn’t, or what they have said and what was once believed. What it should be is what works and what doesn’t. Admitting that something works at the highest level will surely influence what happens at the lowest.

As Brian candidly proposed, the problem lies in choosing a side, in being a true believer, in not being open to ideas. Fitness evangelism is the death of progress. Those who know this will sit silently by in contempt of their peers as they feel the overwhelming power of belief dissuade others from truth.

We are all here for the same reason, to experience performance or an exhibition of it. The difference is in distilling the magic, in accounting for the differences between speaking in tongues, the proselytising by faith, and that of a reality-based approach that uses logic, not belief, to enhance a training effect.

More Like This:

• Run Further, But Hurt Less?
• Steady State Cardio Is Not Dumb (If You Do It Right)
• Impact Forces, Lazy Feet, and How Shoes Can Lead to Injury
• New on Breaking Muscle UK Today

References:

1. Seiler, S. and Tonnesson, E. “Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: The Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training.” Sportscience, 13, 32-53. 2009.

Photo 1 courtesy of Robert Gonda (Athlete: Danielle Lee).

All other photos courtesy of Michael Blevins.

The post Why CrossFitters Need Less HIIT and More Endurance appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

Uttered in disgust on and off for the previous few decades, “LSD” is usually repeated in conversations vilifying its use. After which the exoneration of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) will be thrown out much like the sweat thrown from the brow of a southern Baptist preacher at one of those Midwestern “super” churches. His organ player will hit the crescendo and we are all expected to fall from our proverbial wheelchairs as we realise the sin of going too far for too long.

Yes, we have all been told that intensity is our salvation, and that going hard is both the way and the only way to godliness. But this argument of HIIT versus LSD has been waged for the previous century. It’s just now that the same confrontation might be occurring in the organisation that most recently helped popularise the “train till we puke” mentality.

CrossFit’s Message

This has been at least the perception with which myself and many others view CrossFit. When looking back, this shift is fairly easy to see, as far back as the early 2000s the majority of CrossFit’s training championed the benefits of anaerobic training and demonised anything that pertained to long slow distance. There was almost an apologetic feel when prescribing recovery work at an easy pace, backed frequently by statements to detour: “At CrossFit we are only interested in the first two waves of adaptive response (lactate threshold and VO2 max). The third comes at great cost to your overall physical capacity. (Aerobic)

“[W]e have all been told that intensity is our salvation, and that going hard is both the way and the only way to godliness.”

The message became clear, and not just in the worshipping of the anaerobic system, but the specific demonising of its closely regarded cousin. To be fair the era of the “fat burning zone” was at its peak then, and this likely influenced the conception of CrossFit to begin with, having to overwrite the sloths in crowded globo-gyms, naively sweating away on the elliptical while reading The Daily Mail.

With this followers began their embrace of efforts of the short-sucky nature, consuming unquestioningly everything the CrossFit main site recommended. This was in large part because application of intense exercise to off-the-couch populations or perpetual endurance junkies can radically change fitness levels. This change could have been why it looks like CrossFit has correlated endurance training negatively. The downsides pertaining to endurance training are even listed in the CrossFit Level 1 manual. Some apologists of CrossFit now claim indifference to LSD, but this is in total opposition to the basic description of CrossFit often used as a tagline: “Constantly varied, high intensity, functional movement.” A description that for all intents and purposes negates the action of the long and relatively slow.

The Rise of CrossFit Endurance

Whether due to financial motivation or inspired by the natural blend found in military requirements, CrossFit eventually answered the demand by their athletes wanting to participate in endurance events. Their answer was a controversial methodology headed by Brian MacKenzie in what is now known as CrossFit Endurance. Much like the endurance community’s battle of appealing to the “time-crunched” by the likes of cyclist and triathlete Chris Carmichael, the goal for CrossFit was to appeal to those with an ADD sporting mentality. “Don’t go longer, just go faster.” For the majority of recreational athletes this model works well. The problem lies in believing you can replace distance with intensity in world-class athletic preparation.

The CrossFit Games: A New Story

Enter the CrossFit Games. A few years ago we saw the emergence and need to develop the aerobic system to a higher level as the Games introduced a version of a sprint distance triathlon and then subsequently the half marathon row. Each year they upped the ante, coming closer to what some might actually consider a test of endurance.

“It seems from a marketing standpoint, that CrossFit, Inc. specifically denotes no difference in the training and preparation for life and the training and preparation for sport.”

This year we saw a forty-plus-minute ocean event, and a forty-plus-minute “Murph” variation executed in blistering heat. The tests are still well under the ninety minute mark – the usual marker for endurance as an energy system, as the aerobic system must be aided by additional hydration and glycogen – but the inclusion of longer events, more frequently brings the aerobic system into center focus, and puts this problem in front of many of the sports’ best.

Jason Khalipa famously employed the help of Chris Hinshaw, a former Ironman championship podium-finisher and all-around knowledgeable endurance coach. Aside from enabling Jason the ability to win a few of the “endurance” events as one of the more muscular and heavier athletes, Hinshaw has gone on to work with a large number of games competitors. In a recent interview, he spoke about his methodology and the successes he has had through the use of LSD and the building of the aerobic system in even four-time champion Rich Froning, a statement that went a little under the radar, especially considering CrossFit’s relationship with endurance training.

A Difference in Degree?

This conflict leads to another question – whether or not the sport and the methodology are different? It seems from a marketing standpoint, that CrossFit, Inc. specifically denotes no difference in the training and preparation for life and the training and preparation for sport. As they have mentioned multiple times in the idioms of Greg Glassman, “Your needs and the Olympic athlete’s differ by degree not kind.”

“Fitness evangelism is the death of progress. Those who know this will sit silently by in contempt of their peers as they feel the overwhelming power of belief dissuade others from truth.”

This philosophy would actually all but excuse the use of LSD training had not CrossFit spent the first decade of their existence disparaging its use. How and what will happen when this trend at the top level reaches other spectrums of CrossFit participants? My guess is that it will be a very positive thing. In part because of my love of the sport of CrossFit, my hope for its development, and because we have seen similar evolutions in CrossFit’s past.

When CrossFIt increased the frequency of heavy Olympic lifts, the need to develop the associated strength, coordination, and speed heavily influenced what pretty much any person and/or gym associated with the brand did concerning programming. This move increased the number of top-end Olympic weightlifting athletes and coaches involved in CrossFit, as well. It was so influential that it reinvigorated the weightlifting shoe industry and revived what looked to be a dying sport. Now most programs for even the everyday CrossFit participant piggyback weightlifting-specific programs with some added conditioning. What occurred at the top level affected those not only at the middle, but those who were just starting in the sport.

Change Is Coming

If Hinshaw’s success is any indication, then we should expect to see an explosion of endurance methodology being integrated into not only the training of the top athletes and their respective followers, but also showing up on the CrossFit main site. Like everything before it, the programming will be overdone at first. I imagine the best in the sport will set precedence by posting training metrics that others will try to match. In them doing so, we will see what we experienced with the Olympic lifts in CF, as we saw with a social media fueled snatch competition between high level games athletes prior to the Games. But eventually, the additional time spent developing the lift took away other abilities and the “arms race” neutralized as the athletes experienced a point of diminishing returns, which appeared to be just over the 135 kilo mark with the snatch.

“Admitting that something works at the highest level will surely influence what happens at the lowest.”

Change is upon those who follow the sport and the basic practice of CrossFit. It is seen even with hardline advocates of the short and the intense like Brian MacKenzie. I reached out to Brian to get his thoughts on the evolution of endurance training in CrossFit. I was mostly curious about a recent interview he had done with Barbell Shrugged, in which he described finding problems with the aerobic capacity in athletes. This can be seen as fluctuations in heart rate during a staged ramp test or a prolonged efficiency test. This is known to the endurance world as cardiac drift, for which the fix is the addition of volume or more LSD.

Brian has not reformed completely, as he and I both agree the application needs context. But he is recognizing the need for a more developed aerobic ability and the benefits that go along with it, especially at the level of athletes in the Games. The amount of skill work involved with those he coaches does, in fact, add up to a similar pattern we see when applying LSD to elite training – 70-80% of training volume will be less than 80% effort. This rule of thumb becomes very supportive of the intense effort required for greater fitness and happens to be very well researched.

End Fitness Evangelism

It seems now that the fight shouldn’t be what CrossFit is or what it isn’t, or what they have said and what was once believed. What it should be is what works and what doesn’t. Admitting that something works at the highest level will surely influence what happens at the lowest.

As Brian candidly proposed, the problem lies in choosing a side, in being a true believer, in not being open to ideas. Fitness evangelism is the death of progress. Those who know this will sit silently by in contempt of their peers as they feel the overwhelming power of belief dissuade others from truth.

We are all here for the same reason, to experience performance or an exhibition of it. The difference is in distilling the magic, in accounting for the differences between speaking in tongues, the proselytising by faith, and that of a reality-based approach that uses logic, not belief, to enhance a training effect.

More Like This:

• Run Further, But Hurt Less?
• Steady State Cardio Is Not Dumb (If You Do It Right)
• Impact Forces, Lazy Feet, and How Shoes Can Lead to Injury
• New on Breaking Muscle UK Today

References:

1. Seiler, S. and Tonnesson, E. “Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: The Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training.” Sportscience, 13, 32-53. 2009.

Photo 1 courtesy of Robert Gonda (Athlete: Danielle Lee).

All other photos courtesy of Michael Blevins.

The post Endurance Is Not a Dirty Word appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

These people will head to the gym and check their Google docs to know exactly what routine to do and at what weight, though it is essentially an algorithm doing the dictating. It will dawn on few that they are being trained by a fucking math equation. These same people will complain of a particular “main site” and the myriad followers who blindly follow random training protocols.

The level of hypocrisy is thick, but it won’t stop the self-proclaimed elite from arguing which is the best of these types of sites. Names will all be tossed around and either glorified as “magic” or demonized as the impetus of overtraining or injuries. Some coaches without the resolution or knowledge will employ these same programs on their clients compounding a world of sheep teaching sheep.

The problem with all of this is not the sites or the programs. They are essentially good progressions and generally well thought out. They are created by some of the most intelligent coaches alive – and designed for someone other than you.

“Perhaps seeing numbers advance on a page feels better than being told you aren’t ready to add weight.”

Used improperly, as an exact diagram, followed without question, these programs become our current at-home fitness videos, a degree or two off of P90x and Turbo Jam.

The trouble then is with you.

You are unwilling to seek out real coaching. Yes, it is simpler to copy and paste. Excel is easier to develop than a relationship. Perhaps seeing numbers advance on a page feels better than being told you aren’t ready to add weight. But the line of progression dictated by a spreadsheet looks more and more horizontal, and your future as an athlete much more bleak.

The History of Sports Performance

Closer to the beginning of the previous century, there was an arms race in sports performance. A country’s reputation was based on gold medals, and these minor victories could have implications in real warfare. So began the politicians’ call to the scientists to help them in sport, to find the most efficient way to train so we might do it faster and better, and produce more top-end athletes.

The training diaries of thousands of the world’s best were mined, and the data collected and interpreted. The result is an impressive collection of history, of what happened and by whom. The charts, graphs, and spreadsheets we have today that outline optimal rep/set configurations were part of this discovery.

If you have ever performed 3×10 @ 60% 1RM, commonly found in fitness periodicals, then you have used what was revealed as the stimulus for hypertrophy. Without the use of muscle biopsies or even the direct knowledge of how sarcoplasm works, scientists were able to pin down with relative accuracy what stimulus led to what result.

This knowledge has now been in use for the better half of a century. Science, to this day, has only but shed light on these first discoveries and has so far found them incorrect in very few circumstances.

The Problem With Numbers

These researchers reverse engineered the training process, but in doing so lost one of the most essential parts. They deemphasized the training and looked to the numbers as the primary cause for stimulus. We are inundated with percentages and rep schemes. 70% means more to us than technical proficiency.

A track record of what happened does not tell us how it happened. For instance, the Smolov squat program as we know it may in fact be what happened for one person, but to see what Sergey modified on the day or adapted to address specific problems with the movement is lost. The coaching aspect of progression is voided when we simply follow a training spreadsheet.

“The coaching aspect of progression is voided when we simply follow a training spreadsheet.”

Let’s be honest – few of us are limited by just strength or a lack of linear progression. In most cases, we have a localized and specific weakness or imbalance that cause deviation in our movement. Grip strength or poor hip extension might limit one person in finishing a deadlift. A weak or hyper-mobile mid-back might make another unable to break that bar off the floor. For each of these problems, there are fixes. But they are individual and have nothing to do with arithmetic.

The sport of weightlifting illuminates this perfectly as a progressively overloaded program will help few people reach new levels of ability without consideration to individual limitations. Instead, such a program usually reinforces problems by compounding the amount of reps a trainee does incorrectly.

Individualized Training

Not everyone needs a specialized program, especially if it changes the fun training can add to your day. If you have never trained before, following the CrossFit main site could make you stronger. If you are new enough to training, the Smolov squat program might actually improve your marathon time (although I wouldn’t recommend it). The closer you are to the couch, the more options you have that will result in improvement. But the higher the level of fitness we require, the more appropriate and specific the numbers and protocol must become.

Training “Superman” Henry Cavill

Numbers are useful and eventually are what we are aiming to improve, but our reliance and focus on them has overshadowed the most valuable tool in developing athletes – a relationship with a trusted mentor. This does not mean generalized, pre-written, or even one-size-fits-all programs are worthless. It means how the majority of practitioners who use them is.

I view examples of others programs as learning tools, examples of a coach’s style. But nothing will replace the progression an athlete or trainee can make by having a real coach oversee a scientifically devised plan. We know this because despite all the science and advances the Russians (or others involved in the Soviet system) are responsible for in regards to sport, they still have a coach in all the training halls for developing athletes – watching, taking notes, giving advice.

“Nothing will replace the progression an athlete or trainee can make by having a real coach oversee a scientifically devised plan.”

The Chinese, with a seemingly endless supply of technology, utilize experience and a watchful eye as their cornerstone of practice. The Bulgarian system, for all of its controversy in weightlifting, was not advanced because of their “magical” theory of frequency or the supposed doping program. No, they had one of the best coaches in the world, Ivan Abadjiev, who not only devised the program but also implemented it perfectly, pulling athletes when he noticed problems or forcing advances when he saw potential. Once all this is realized, then finding a proper mentor is not even up for debate.

Find a Good Coach

The most important aspect, when following a generalized program would be to include a deep evaluation of ourselves with the help of outside eyes or a knowledgeable coach. Then the easy access to “examples” of programming would be an addition to your knowledge base.

You might start to recognize patterns where certain coaches are able to fix specific problems. You must also know whom the program was written for, why, and his or her training history. If a program lacks these details in its explanation, then following that program is a bad idea. With this approach, programming makes sense and it is a teaching tool, not an unguided list of instructions.

There are infinite possibilities to achieving one goal, but we have to be careful not to confuse infinite with guaranteed, as there are also infinite ways to fail. Arming yourself with knowledge and examples of how others correct problems will separate you from the crowds looking for an easy answer to “How should I train?”

“Implement the useful bits that will add to your ability or even just your experience, and ditch the rest.”

The next time you are flipping through squat routines, copying exercises from Hookgrip videos, or even looking at what some arbitrary CrossFit champion is doing, try to look at the process and how it applies to you. Recognize the style as just that, and not a magical solution based on math. Implement the useful bits that will add to your ability or even just your experience, and ditch the rest.

If you aren’t improving after jumping from program to program, realize it is not because you are special. It is because you are most likely missing the single most important factor in athletic development – an objective guide.

Check out these related articles:

• Overcoming Self-Imposed Limitations
• 4 Reasons You’re Not Getting Stronger
• The Strength Training Secrets of the Russians
• What’s New On Breaking Muscle Today

Photos 1,3, and 4 courtesy of Michael Blevins.

Photo 2 courtesy of Shutterstock.

The post The Problem Isn’t Your Strength Program – It’s You appeared first on Breaking Muscle.