Process vs Program

Image courtesy of bellasugar.com

*The premise for this entire post comes from material and ideas presented in the RTS courses and through discussions with other exercise professionals.

In yesterday's post I described how MAT is a process, saying that it is a form of exercise. By association, you could then reason that exercise in general is a process. In fact, this is one of the ways exercise is described in the RTS courses (RTSm Science 1 4:4), as a process.

A process denotes some level of trial and error, of figuring out what is appropriate to do at each step in order to reach a specific end goal. A program, on the other hand, may have that same end goal, but each step in getting there is more solidified and the progression in general is less malleable based on ability level. A program is more or less a choreographed routine (idea courtesy of RTS).

One of the issues that arises with the latter is that of appropriateness. Because there is some type of preexisting structure to a program, there are automatically assumptions being made and physical prerequisites that must be met in order to begin and progress through an exercise program. An exercise program therefore cannot be based off of the individual on a moment by moment basis, but rather the individual must fit him or herself within the constraints of the program. This in and of itself may limit the effectiveness of each exercise to stimulate the desired response and adaptation.

Image courtesy of acefitness.org

I grew up doing programs. That's how I was first introduced to weight lifting and exercise. Three sets of ten for all of the machines in the circuit at the Y. When I was in college, everything was programs. Post-season, off-season, pre-season, in-season. All programmed. You knew exactly what you would be doing for the next six to eight weeks the moment you were handed those sheets of paper. From a time efficiency standpoint, it seemed like the easier (and more feasible) option when you are talking about one strength coach and hundreds of athletes. The tradeoff to this was undoubtedly sacrificing the appropriateness and effectiveness of each individual's training.

Image courtesy of transformation.com

Then I started writing programs for others. Friends, teammates, coaches, people who would contact me via e-mail--if someone wanted an exercise program, I would write it. Eventually it got to the point where I was spending hours writing programs each week. Additionally, I would write out pages of descriptions for each exercise so the person knew what the names I assigned would denote. Not long after that those written descriptions turned into videos, as did the programs themselves, but I was still spending hours editing and uploading those videos in addition to writing the programs.

Image courtesy of digplanet.com

Those videos became the Exercise Index and most of the programs were posted to the Programs page. While both are convenient for others, I have been questioning whether either or both should remain public on this website as they are essentially in direct conflict with the ideas I am trying to promote. If they do, there will undoubtedly be a revamping that takes place to better align them with my current viewpoints and ethics.

There is also the subject of periodized programming or periodization for both those training for sports performance and not. To me, periodization still has its place and makes sense, but I now implement a much looser form of periodization than I would have used in the past. To me, periodization is simply a form of progression, but the question is how constricting is that progression. Do you have to work at those exact percentages, weights, reps, sets, etc this week or is there more wiggle room with what you do?

I can say for certain that I am trying to progress** every client of mine in one form or another, but how this happens makes all the difference in the world. Are your and/or your clients' workouts structured in strict phases or are you allowing what they have available before, during, and after each rep to influence what happens while they are with you? Are you open to changing on a moment by moment basis as well as possibly scrapping all together any predetermined plan you constructed for your client, depending on their abilities and what they have available to give at that moment?

**At some point in our lives, being able to maintain what we are currently physically able to do may be seen as a form of progress. Additionally, slower regression may be seen in a similar or the same light. In the context of this blog post, all of these meanings are to be taken into consideration when I say I am trying to progress every client of mine. I will dive deeper into this subject in a future post.

Do you approach exercise as a process or a program? When you think of your end goal, are there clearly defined steps that are set in stone and must be taken in order to reach that goal or are you open to a myriad of different possible steps that will be determined as you go along?

Your body. Your training.

Want to use this arti­cle in your blog, newslet­ter, or other plat­form? You can, but be sure to include all of the bio­graph­i­cal infor­ma­tion found in the yel­low box below!

MAT is a Process

Image courtesy of morethanmuscles.com

One of the biggest challenges I have faced so far as a Muscle Activation Techniques™ Specialist is getting the clients I work with to buy into the fact that MAT is a process.  I am certainly to blame for most of this difficulty as I think early on I may have been promoting it as something else.  So let me take this opportunity to say that MAT is not a quick fix, one and done type of modality.  It is not a form of treatment or therapy or healing intervention.  It is a form of exercise; an applied stimulus--force into tissue--attempting to create a response and adaptation--improved contractile efficiency and increased set point.*

Image courtesy of joeybergles.wordpress.com

Just like any other form of exercise, the adaptations that are created will not be maintained if an appropriate stimulus is not provided at appropriate time intervals.  Let's say you build your squat up so you can lift 4oo pounds.  After you hit that weight once, you get to keep those strength levels forever without lifting again, right?  Not likely.

Image courtesy of blogs.discovery.com

Or let's say you are a runner and you run a sub five minute mile.  After you do that once you don't ever have to exercise again and can continue to maintain that level of conditioning, right?  Improbable.

Image courtesy of nlm.nih.gov

Or what about in terms of weight loss?  After you work really hard to drop twenty pounds you don't ever have to exercise again in order to keep that weight off, correct?  Eh, not exactly.

The same holds true for MAT.  You expose yourself to a stimulus, which may create a response.  If you expose yourself to that stimulus frequently enough, an adaptation may occur.  If that initial response does not hold or last forever, does it mean MAT didn't work?  Well, if you lose the weight you want to but don't continue with the process and put the weight back on, does it mean exercise didn't work? (Idea courtesy of Matthew Bernier)

There may be some relief of discomfort that comes from participating in a Muscle Activation Techniques™ session.  If so, awesome, but that doesn't mean anything has been "fixed".  Fixing implies a level of permanency, which is not exactly the case when dealing with a tissue or material that is able to adapt.  Additionally, as explained by Jacques Taylor, there may be some adaptations that have occurred to the tissue in question over the period of time when it was not contracting as efficiently.  Despite any relief of discomfort or change in sensation, there is still a process that may have to occur of providing a greater and greater stimulus in order to condition the tissue to contract efficiently after being exposed to higher intensities and/or greater volumes of force.

If this process is not allowed to occur, potentially because somebody experiences initial relief of discomfort from MAT and then does not return to it, there may be a greater likelihood that the initial discomfort is experienced at a later point in time.  Just like the examples of more traditional forms of exercise given above, this does not mean that the stimulus was not effective at creating a response, but rather that continued exposure to that stimulus (or other stimuli) may be necessary in order to create an adaptation that lasts a bit longer.

MAT is a form of exercise that does not look like traditional exercise.  If you stopped exercising forever, would you be upset that exercise didn't work because all of the positive adaptations that were created started to diminish?

Inter­ested in find­ing out more? Check out the “Mus­cle Acti­va­tion Tech­niques™” page.

Inter­ested in set­ting up an assess­ment time or dis­cussing this sub­ject fur­ther? E-mail Char­lie at charlie@selfmadefitness.com.

Your body. Your training.

Want to use this arti­cle in your blog, newslet­ter, or other plat­form? You can, but be sure to include all of the bio­graph­i­cal infor­ma­tion found in the yel­low box below!

*I'll expand on these ideas in future posts.

Process vs. Outcome

Image courtesy of http://tennisassist.com

Many of us have an idea where we want to end up. We have our destination in mind and we work hard to arrive at our intended destination. Whether it be in regard to finances, education, health and fitness, relationships, or any other area, we have certain "things" we desire, and when we put action behind achieving these desires, we could say they become goals. These goals are our intended outcomes and to improve our likelihood of achieving these outcomes we often seek the advice of those who have already achieved either the outcome in its entirety or more of the outcome than we presently have. In other words, we look to external sources in order to improve the quality of an internal process.

Now, there are certainly situations where seeking the advice of those who have come before you is incredibly beneficial.  For example, if a college professor were to give the same exam year after year, it may be worth your time and effort to gather as much information about what is on the exam from those who have already taken in.  The crucial point, though, is that they don't dictate exactly how you prepare and study for the exam.  Because people learn in different ways, in different settings, and at different speeds, it would be asinine to prescribe a predetermined syllabus that says what, where, and for how long somebody else needs to study each bit of the subject matter.

Image courtesy of http://www.seankenney.com

What about something like baking a cake or constructing a Lego set? These formulas for success have time-tested variables in terms of the physical process that needs to happen in order for the desired outcome to be achieved.  There still is, however, a lot of variation in regard to how long it will actually take someone to, for example, bake a great-tasting cake.  Some people will need more practice than others before they acquire the necessary skills as well as conceptualize why each step is important.

You see this all the time in fitness and training.  Trainers and coaches are constantly pushing the mindset of, "This is what I did and it worked for me so it will work for you, too."  The flaws with this line of thinking are very apparent when it comes to baking or learning math and yet we still, as an industry, try to carry on with it in fitness and training. "This is what I did to lose weight so you should do it, too." "This is what I did to develop into a professional athlete so it will work for you, too." "This is how I got stronger so this is the method you should use." Really???

Image courtesy of http://dedication2education.com

Are we that unable to look beyond ourselves and see that this person's biological make-up and their life experiences may be completely different from our own such that we think our way is the best way for them?  And not just the best way, but the only way, such that there is no other option.  This is completely outlandish.

Tom Purvis, founder of RTS, speaks of this kind of mindset in his "6 + 2 = 8" vs. "8 = 6 + 2" scenario.*  In the first equation there is one and only one correct answer.  In the second equation there are literally an infinite number of correct answers.  The problem we have as both a society and an industry is we see the two equations as exactly the same.  Our personal experiences are the first equation, while those of the people we are working with are the second equation.  We both know what we want, but that by no means it is an indicator that our processes should be the same.  But, because we have gotten a "correct" answer in the past, we stop looking for new answers and instead try to plug everybody and everything around us into our own personal equation.

Image courtesy of http://examinetheglass.com

Offering advice to others based off of your own experience can be incredibly valuable to them, but we must be cautious when administering orders without first taking into consideration the individual's specific abilities and goals.  We know the outcome want, but in all honesty we are rarely certain of the process. This uncertainty can only be reduced if we are able to objectively analyze each individual's unique and ever-changing situation.  Without doing so, we are shooting in the dark and hoping for the best.

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.

*There is more to this scenario than what is elaborated on here, but for the purposes of this post that is as far as I will discuss it.