5/3/1 and Athletes

Image courtesy of http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com

I used to post articles and tell you why I thought they were worth your time to read, but as I am learning more and more, I am finding fewer articles that actually meet this criteria.  Instead, I will start posting articles that may look good to most and point out the flaws I see.

Case #1--5/3/1 and Athletes by Jim Wendler

So at first glance, many people would really like this article.  It is simple in its philosophies and verbiage and gives advice that is based on some of the more popular views in regards to sports performance and power lifting.  However, I see it differently.

First, Mr. Wendler describes the barbell and its available movements as "the best".  As soon as something is dubbed "the best" without applying it to a very specific scenario and individual the person making the claim is completely disregarding any variation of structural or neuromuscular ability between people.  In this article the goal was clearly defined, but if that wasn't the case, this would be another variable as well.  Clearly these variations exist, so to claim an exercise or a series of exercises or a piece of equipment "the best" is utterly ignorant.

"Choosing the correct assistance work is easy."  Yes, if you do not acknowledge that any variables exist which could possibly make it challenging, then it will be easy.  However, if you are actually prescribing exercises for the improvement of the athletes' performance instead of just giving them something to do, then it will involve some thought, and a fair amount at that.  Assistance work should be individualized based on an athlete's current ability.  Anything less is nothing short of malpractice and criminal.

"Remember that athletes have become explosive and strong long before fancy machines and equipment came into vogue.  You don't need much equipment, just the right coach and smart programming."  Two points here.  First is the Process vs. Outcome that I wrote about earlier.  This mindset of, "this is how it was done before for other people so this is how it should be done now for you" is clearly applied in Wendler's statement.  Second, he is completely disregarding any benefit that may be attained from the use of machines, which is just simply wrong.  Not only can machines be beneficial for increasing performance, but, based on some individuals' abilities, they may be downright necessary for increasing performance.  Now, Wendler doesn't flat-out say machines are bad or you shouldn't use them, but he is clearly implying a hierarchy of tools to be used without knowing anything about the specific scenario in which they are to be used, and that is a fatal error.

He continues on in the next two paragraphs to advise people on, of all things, training post-injury.  First he speaks in generalities listing areas of the body of possibly injury.  Then he follows this with specifics regarding what should be done to improve these general conditions, as if everybody's shoulder, back, hamstring, and knee issues are exactly the same.

"Don't coach what you don't know or don't feel comfortable with."  He clearly feels very comfortable with his view points, but it is equally as obvious that there are a TON of variables he is not taking into consideration when applying these concepts.  Actually, that's not a fair statement.  He may be applying these principles, but just didn't take the time to write them.  I mean, let's be serious, someone would have to write pages  upon pages of technicalities to appropriately cover all of the information that Wendler is trying to.  But, at the same time, perhaps this speaks to the importance of narrowing down the focus of what you are trying to write about and not going off on tangents when you have no intention of wrapping up the loose ends.  Still, it is certain he does not understand how to properly manipulate the variables of machines in order to create the exact training scenario you desire for that person at that moment in time.

Finally, his sign-off is killing me.  It is not about simple programming.  It just isn't.  It's about appropriate programming, regardless of how complex that is.

Your Body.  Your Training.

Get big or die tryin'.

Charlie Cates, MATs, CSCS
Self Made_®, Owner and Founder

Charlie Cates is a Muscle Activation Techniques _® specialist and a strength and conditioning specialist.  He is the owner and founder of Self Made_® (http://selfmadefitness.com/) in Chicago, IL.  He has worked with competitive and everyday athletes of all ages and ability levels, from 9-year-old kids to NFL MVP’s.  He can be reached via e-mail at charlie@selfmadefitness.com.
This article may be reproduced with biographical information intact.

Prefences of Movement

 

You see it all the time--trainers and coaches inflicting their opinions and biases upon their athletes and clients with only a limited acknowledgement of the individual's abilities, limitations, or needs.  When it happens in the medial realm it is called malpractice but when it happens in the gym it is called working out.  Huh??  This is absurd.

Take the squat, for example.  Back squats, front squats, box squats, split squats, single-leg squats, goblet squats, assisted squats, wall squats, ball squats, squats with accommodating resistance, and I am sure I am forgetting some other type of variation.  All of these--based on the implements used, the placement of the resistance relative to the body and the specific joint in question, the direction of the resistance, how the person is applying force into the ground, tempo, intention, and how much movement occurs at each joint during the motion--will affect the body in profoundly different ways.  You can even take the same movement with the same weight, implements, and placement of resistance and get completely different adaptations and sensations both from a structural and neuromuscular perspective if the other variables are not controlled, as well.

The point of all of this is that to label an exercise as "good" or "bad" or to completely disregard one variation of an exercise and/or only using a single variation is not only ignorant, it is dangerous, because the question that is failing to be asked is, "Is this appropriate for this individual at this moment in time?".  Without first asking this question and then seeking the answer, you are simply guessing as to whether the stimulus you are applying to the body should, in fact, be applied while at the same time assuming it is appropriate to do so.

It is time to collectively give up our arrogant and ignorant preferences of movement and start developing a preference for appropriateness.

Get big or die tryin'.

Charlie Cates, CSCS
Self Made_®, Owner and Founder

Charlie Cates is a strength and conditioning specialist and the owner and founder of Self Made_® (http://selfmadefitness.com/) in Chicago, IL.  He has worked with competitive and everyday athletes of all ages and ability levels, from 9-year-old kids to NFL MVP’s.  He can be reached via e-mail at charlie@selfmadefitness.com.

This article may be reproduced with biographical information intact.