Training Tools

Throughout the history of fitness and exercise there has been many trends and gadgets that make different claims.  They usually claim they are the best thing since sliced bread,  but the test of time kind of weeds these things out.  An example is Indian clubs.  Most people don’t even know what these are.   Popular in the 19^th century up to around 1930’s, they kind of look like bowling pins.  They have many uses, especially in swinging, but they eventually took a backseat to organized sports that were beginning to be popular.  Were these effective?  Absolutely.  Were they a “cure all”?  Definitely not.  Indian clubs are just tools.

Everyone knows that you need more than one tool in a toolbox.  You can’t rebuild a carburetor with a hammer and you can’t drive a nail wrench.  When some new thing is presented in the fitness industry, everyone goes crazy.  More recent examples are suspension trainers, stability balls (Swiss or BOSU), strongman training, high intensity interval training (HIIT), kettlebells (a resurgence), bands, yoga, and pilates.  The problem is that we think that one thing can do everything.  I know people that will only train with kettlebells or just do exercises while standing on a BOSU ball.  This makes no sense.  This is even true with traditional exercises (barbells, dumbells, and cable machines).  Imagine if you saw a trainer working with a client using just a barbell every week for years.  Though the barbell is very versatile, it is not always optimal.  It’s hard to do a vertical pulling exercise (i.e. chin-up) with a barbell.  That is why you need other training tools.  Even certain exercises are tools.  It does not  make any sense for a bodybuilder to do only Olympic lifts.  How about sets and reps?  Sometimes you see people in CrossFit videos doing fifty power cleans.  Obviously power movements are not meant for HIIT. 

There are all kinds of examples I could go on discussing.  The main point is to be careful with the “cure all” things that promise you an end to all your training problems.  Look out for those trainers as well.  There is a lot of them. 

Rack vs Everything

Many of my followers and trainees/athletes know my feelings on free weights and resistance machines.  Free weights are far better for gains in strength, power, balance, and are more sport specific.  In certain settings resistance machines are fine and sometimes better.  This is usually under limited supervision of individuals with limited ability or skills that it takes to perform a more advanced movement.  But they do pose many problems when it comes to space, cost, and effectiveness.

The Rack (sometimes called squat-rack), be it power-rack, multi-rack, or half-rack, is the most important piece of equipment in any gym (throw in a set of dumbells and you don't need much more).  It is very versatile.  You can do almost every exercise that is needed in or just outside of a rack.  I'm not going to go into all these exercises, but there are more exercises you can do in a rack than there are resistance machines in any gym.

If you go to any university weight room, professional sports team weight room, or olympic training weight room, you will find lines of racks filling the room and not many machines.   Even my high school weight room, a very rural school, had four racks (and two olympic platforms) and it was only twice the size as my office.  You don't need much space, just the right equipment.      

How about the price?  Many gym memberships are expensivse.  I have toured most of them in the Indianpaolis area and just about all of them are the same, with little differences.  If they have two racks your lucky.  Most have just one if any.  In fact, most have more smith machines than racks (I'm not going into smith machines right now.  Just stay out of them...or hang your jacket on them).  Simple economics will tell you that the more a facility costs to run, the more the membership rates will be.  So how does a rack compare to resistance machines when it comes to cost?  Let's do the math.

I priced some equipment from two industry leading equipment companies while the weights are commodities.  I choose these companies because I am very familiar with them.  The resistance machine are one company while the bench and  rack are another.  The olympic weight set is not the best, but similiar to what you would find in most gyms.  Oh, and they are not rubber coated or have special handles.  This is also a waste of money.

Leg press machine                    Bicep curl machine
$5,995                                      $3,835

Standing calf raise machine      300 lb. Olympic weight set
$4,135                                       $389

Adjustable bench                      Multi-rack
$919                                         $2,799 (full-rack is $200 more)

Totals for the rack set up:        $3,907
Total for three machines:         $13,965   

That's right.  The rack set up is only $72 dollars more than the Curl machine and you can do curls in a rack (please don't though).  You can add a set of dumbells to this and have a full set up, but you only really need one set, maybe two depending on membership volume, but most all gyms have dumbells.

Let's say that most gyms have around 16 resistance machines.  Check out the prices.  How many racks with a bench and 300 lbs. could you have?  If you take the average of the leg press and the bicep curl machine, multiply by 16 and divide by the price of the rack set up and you get 20.  Can you imagine a commercial gym with 20 racks.  Or 16 racks and a lower membership rate?   There is also a lower maintenance cost on free weights.  Everyone knows the more moving parts something has, the more it costs to maintain and repair. 

I would settle for just one more rack and no bicep curl machine.  Oh, and since most gyms don't have one more rack, please stop curling in the one they have.  If you can curl it, you can pick it up off the floor.          

If your gym needs more power racks, please fill out a comment card and encourage others you know to do so.  It is simple economics of supply and demand.  If you demand it, they will supply it.  Let's start demanding it!

Rocker-Bottom Shoes? Save Your Money.

Many new footwear products have been introduced to the market over the last few years.  This is nothing new.  Manufacturers are always trying to come up with new ideas to sell shoes.  Every once in a while you hear of a lawsuits over false claims, but they are rare.  Why?  Because much of the research is owned by the manufacturer.  Even if the research is done by a third party, it is under contract that the research cannot be published if the findings do not support the claims. 

A new type of shoe, rocker-bottom shoes (i.e. Sketcher Shape-ups), were introduced a few years ago.  Much like anything else, this product hit the market before research was done to support the claims.  The claims are that wearing the shoes activates the muscles differently compared to regular shoes.  After a couple of years, much research has been done on this product.  One study just recently published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning measured oxygen consumption and EMG data on the biceps femoris, rectus femoris, gastrocnemius, and tibialis anterior while wearing rocker-bottom shoes (Sketcher Shape-ups), flat-bottom shoes (Adidas), and weight matched flat-bottom shoes.      

In the study, 17 women and 11 men, all healthy and an in their mid-twenties, performed 10 minutes on a treadmill at a speed 10% higher than a self-selected speed for three times for all three shoes.  EMG data and oxygen consumption data were collected.  No difference was found other than tibialis anterior activity was slightly lower in the rocker-bottom shoes.  Not the manufacturer’s claim.  This is consisted with many other studies done on this type of shoe. 

Advice to owners of these shoes: give them to a second hand store and put more work in if you want to see results.  For a long time we have been trying to find an easy way out.  There isn’t one.  The only thing is hard work... and don’t forget about your diet!

Refeerence

Santo, Antonio S. Roper, Jenevieve >, Dufer, Janet S., and Mercer, John A.  Rocker-Bottom, Profil-Type Shoes Do Not Increase Lower Extremity Muscle Activity or Energy Cost of Walking.  J Strength Cond Res  26(9): 2436-2431. 2012.

Squat Deep for Best Results

The squat is one of the best exercises that can be done.  Whether it is back, front, overhead, zurcher, goblet, bodyweight, or whatever, everyone should be doing it.  In fact, everyone does it on a daily basis when you do your morning ritual involving a porcelain thrown (if you don’t, eat more fiber).  This movement is so important that I have people well into their ninetieth decade doing box squats and some with added weight!  It’s that important.

The question of how safe squatting is, especially deep squats, has been debated for a long time.  Many variations, depths, and equipment have been looked at scientifically in the past.  Much of the research supports the safety and effectiveness of squatting.  I am a supporter of squatting, especially through a full range of motion (or deep squats) as well as raw (without wraps, belts, etc.).  Some strength coaches may disagree with me (especially older ones) but as new research is done, I will try to present the facts to support my opinion.   

A new study done looked at relative muscular effort (RME) in squatting and how it is affected by depth and load in ten trained women.  These were done across the hip extensor, knee extensor, and ankle plantar-flexor.   (I will not discuss the methods used.  Original article is cited at the end of the article for reference.)  Their findings showed that RME in the knee extensor increased with depth, but not with load.  The ankle plantar-flexor showed the opposite.  Hip extensor RME increased with depth and weight.    

Translated:  Squat deep and for reps for quadriceps work, deep and/or heavy for glute work, and heavy for ankle strength. 

This study proves that squatting deep is best.  This isn’t the first research done on this subject and it won’t be the last.  Deep squats can improve many aspects of a human performance as well as aesthetics.  Want to grow larger thighs?  Squat deep for high reps (and no ladies, this will not make you look like a freak).  1981 Mr. Olympia 3^rd place finalist Tom Platz had some of the most impressive thighs known in any sport.  He is rumored to have squatted 635 lbs. for 8 reps, 350lbs. for 52 reps, and 225 for 100 reps.  In fact, you can see on youtube.com Platz performing 23 reps of deep squats using 495 lbs.  No small feat. 

Squat deep and for reps.  This should be the majority of your squatting.  Oh, and if you aren’t squatting, you should be. 

Reference:

Bryanton, Megan A.; Kennedy, Michael D. Ph.D.; Carey, Jason P. Ph.D., P. Eng: Chiu, Loren Z.F. Ph.D. Effect of Squat Depth and Barbell Load on Relative Muscular Effort in Squatting.  J Strength Cond Res.  Published ahead of print.

Good cholesterol may not cure all!!!

A recent computer analysis of 20 studies done in the UK that was published in the medical journal The  Lancet showed that genetically high HDL or “good” cholesterol gives you the same risk of heart attack as having a normal level.  Understandably, more research needs to be done to prove this, but it is an interesting find and it may be a good thing.

 What you ask? How can this be a good thing?  Before going into this, let’s review what cholesterol is and what it does. 

Cholesterol is a lipid just like fat, fatty acids, and triglycerides.  Because lipids are hydrophobic they must bind to proteins to be carried throughout the body.  Cholesterol is carried by lipoproteins.  There are many, but the main concern is with low density and high density lipoproteins or LDL (bad) and HDL (good).  LDL carries cholesterol to the periphery while HDL carries it away from the periphery to the liver.  The cholesterol that is delivered to the periphery can be deposited in the arteries causing atherosclerosis.  This is why HDL is thought to be good, but with this new finding it may lead to us finding out that it’s not so great.    

Why is this a good thing?  Because we realize that a lot of medication could possibly be pointless.  I’m not saying to stop taking your medication.  Pharmaceutical companies have been searching for drugs to help raise HDL levels for a while now.  This could eliminate the need create a drug that might not work and could cost patients lots of money.  High HDL levels have been found in people who live a healthy lifestyle.  It may be other things that are protecting healthy people from atherosclerosis.  Exercise itself lowers triglycerides, postprandial lipemia, and increases lipoprotein enzyme activity affecting the way your body handles cholesterol. 

But it also increases insulin sensitivity, lowers blood pressure, helps prevent colon and breast cancer, eases arthritic pain, slows osteoporosis, prevents Alzheimer’s disease, relieves stress and anxiety, and the list goes on and on.  How many drugs would it take to relieve the symptoms (not the cause) of these conditions?  Maybe the public will consider living healthier lifestyle rather than just taking a pill for everything.   

Kettlebells may have similar results as weightlifting for power gain but not for strength.

To build off of the “Training Tools” article, a recent study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning compared weightlifting and the use of kettlebells on vertical jump and strength. 

The study consisted of 30 men ages 19-26 with at least one year’s experience in resistance training.   There were two groups.  One group performed swings, accelerated swings, and goblet squats using a 16 kg kettlebell.  The weightlifting group performed high pulls, power clean, and back squats using a barbell.  The groups trained twice a week for six weeks.  A similar progressive overload training volume was used for both groups.

The kettlebell group improved at 1RM in squat by 4.5% while the weightlifting group improved by 13.6%.  There was no significant difference in vertical jump or power clean performance, but each group had a significant gain in vertical jump. 

The biggest issue in this study was the difference in weights used.  Only a 16 kg kettlebell was used.  Using a heavier kettlebell may have changed the results.  Also, power cleans are a very difficult technique that take a lot of time to perfect.  The lack of experience may have been a factor. 

Looking at the data, it could be possible to improve power to a similar degree with kettlebells as it would with power cleans, but more likely with beginners.  Although, goblet squats are excellent for teaching and perfecting squatting technique, a heavy bar across the back while squatting is much more effective for gaining strength.

Refeerence

Otto, W.H., Coburn, J.W., Brown, L.E., and Spiering, B.A. Effects of Weightlifting vs. Kettlebell Training on Vertical Jump, Strength, and Body Composition.  J Strength Cond Res.   26(5): 1199-1202. 2012.