Abbreviated Training: Another Perspective - By Jim Duggan

A couple months ago, I wrote an article about abbreviated training in which I reviewed an article in an old issue of Ironman magazine, which was originally written by Bradley Steiner.  Over the years, there have been many articles devoted to the concept of abbreviated training, and one thing that I have discovered during that time, is that the authors of these articles read like a “Who’s who” of Iron Game writers.  

     Back in the Summer of 1987, I was in what can best be described as the “off season” of powerlifting.  My most recent contest had been two months earlier, and the next meet which I had my sights on wasn’t until November.  So, with a couple months of “down time,” it was a perfect opportunity to try different things other than just Squat, Bench Press, and Deadlift.

     The July 1987 issue of Muscular Development was an exceptional edition, considering the fact that York’s glory days were past.  Bob Hoffman had died two years earlier, Strength and Health magazine had folded the following Spring.  But Muscular Development was still going strong, and even though there were new names listed on the staff of the magazine, the quality was still, in fact, quite good and very interesting.

     The editor at that time was Jan Dellinger, and anyone with even a remote knowledge of lifting and physical culture would recognize Mr. Dellinger as one of the most knowledgeable figures and gifted authors in the sport.  He had been working for York since the 1970s, but I did not have the pleasure of meeting Jan until I competed in the Bob Hoffman Strength Challenges from 1999- 2001.  Suffice to say that, after having met him, I came to the conclusion that everyone else has: Mr. Dellinger is, in addition to being one of the great figures in Iron Game history, he is also a true gentleman.  

     Anyway, back to the article.  In addition to his editorial, which accurately described the problem with steroids and testing in the sport, he penned a great article devoted to abbreviated training.  The title of the article was “Obtaining The Maximum From The Minimum.”  

    In it, he relates his own experience with abbreviated training, which came about as a matter of necessity, due to his busy schedule as editor of MD, and the inherent tasks that come with putting out a magazine.  Early in the article, he is gracious enough to acknowledge some of the great Iron Game writers who had espoused that sort of training.  Brad Steiner, Dr. Ken Leistner, and Stuart McRobert are all names that should resonate with serious lifters.  

     All though the writers mentioned all have their own theories of abbreviated training, the basic fundamentals were, are, and always will be the same:  Limiting the number of training days, exercises, and number of sets, while at the same time allowing for adequate rest time between workouts.  

     A salient point that he makes is that abbreviated training is “very basic and unglamorous, which makes it tough to get the attention it deserves in a sport that runs on hype and panache.”  Truer words were never spoken.  If you think about it, advising someone to deadlift to failure is definitely NOT glamorous or fancy.  On the other hand, telling someone to bomb and blitz his lats with endless sets which will build “barn-door lats” is the sort of eye-catching advice that has been hyped in the muscle magazines for decades.  

     Speaking of the muscle magazines, the idea of isolation exercises over compound heavy movements has been a mainstay of the “muscle comics” are one of the worst concepts that have been endorsed by the drug-bloated bodybuilders featured in many a magazine.  It’s easy to see how one can mistakenly be steered toward “serious volume abuse.”  Eventually, overtraining, lack of progress, frustration, possible injury will eventually happen if one remains on such a misguided program.  Long time readers of www.naturalstrength.com will recognize that most trainees, especially those who are considered to be hard-gainers, simply would be better off if they would commit themselves to two ( or at the very most three) full body workouts per week.  

     Like many strength writers, Mr. Dellinger advocates the three powerlifts as the core movements of any weight-training program.  These wonderful exercises should be the staples of any quality program.  For a beginner, they are the sine qua non.  They are indispensable for building strength and size.  Naturally, as one becomes more experienced and advanced, he/she can substitute other movements or even add exercises provided that recuperation between workouts is adequate.

     To put it in basic terms, according to Jan, your workouts should be constructed as follows:

Upper Body Push, Upper Body Pull, Major Lower Back Movement, Major Thigh Movement, and an Abdominal Movement.

You can alternate upper body push and pull movements one day, then devote the second training day to your thigh and lower back movements.  And as far as the abdominal training is concerned, one or two sets of sit-ups or leg raises is sufficient.  No need to try and emulate advanced bodybuilders with hundreds of reps.

     One specific movement that Jan recommends is the bent-arm pullover for upper-body development.  It hits just about every upper-body muscle:  chest, lats, front and rear deltoids.  It used to be a very popular exercise “back in the day,” and Jan relates how some members of the old “York Gang” made fantastic gains doing pullovers.  I  remember when I first joined Bruno’s, there were some members there who did pullovers on a regular basis.  They used a barbell, instead of a dumbbell as recommended by Mr. Dellinger, but the basics of the exercise remained the same.  

     I would like to go further and state that if you have access to a pullover machine ( Nautilus, Hammer Strength) then one or two sets a week will build great strength in your upper body.  I first started using a pullover machine at Iron Island.  It was- and is- a great movement provided that you do it in a strict, controlled fashion.  No cheating or momentum!

     I touched on training frequency before, and it’s a good idea to mention it again.  “Working each muscle group too often can lead to a downward spiral even though you are on a condensed routine.”  This is all contingent on how many days of rest you are allowing yourself between workouts.  For most people, it is a matter of personal preference which can only be determined through trial and error and experience.  I’ve mentioned this many times, and it bears repeating:  You know yourself better than anyone else does.  But at the same time, you must be honest with yourself in appraising your recuperative abilities.  Don’t blindly follow the routine of another person, especially if the person in question uses steroids or other PEDs.

    As I mentioned earlier, Jan Dellinger is one of the most knowledgeable and respected figures in the Iron Game.  Any trainee would benefit greatly from his articles.  As I look back at this nearly 40 year old magazine ( where does the time go?), I recognize how lucky I was to be exposed to such great training ideas.

Read More »

Training for Strength, Not Trends: A Tactical Athlete’s Smart Approach to Strength - By RJ Hicks, MS, CSCS

Sean wipes the sweat of his brow before he steps under the Pendulum Standing Squat Pro for his third and final paired set of squats followed by pullovers performed on the Medx Pullover. Sean is a police officer who struggles to reach full depth with barbell squats without severely rounding his lower back and therefore chooses to use the Pendulum standing Squat Pro to perform the squat motion. This is a lower body squat (knee-bend) movement that aligns well with his body, causes him no pain, and allows him to constantly increase the weight as he gets stronger every week. This is a go-to A+ exercise for Sean because he can continually train on it to get bigger and stronger, all while keeping his body feeling good in the process.  Sean priorities all A+ exercises over competitive lifts, because his GOAL is to increase his muscular size and strength to reduce his severity of injuries at work and allow him to perform law enforcement tasks in a more efficient manner, not to compete in a strength sport or fitness competition.

Sean squeezes out the eight rep and racks the weight after reaching the goal for the workout. He will move up 5 pounds as he was able to complete all three sets of eight in good form despite the challenging loads used during all three sets. If the rep goal is not reached or it is a real strain to meet the goal, the weight does not move up and he continues to strive to reach the goal. Sean did not have to decrease the loads on each set nor sacrifice his intensity because of the four plus minute built-in rest between each set. Sean rested long enough between the squats and pullovers until he was ready to deliver a hard effort on pullovers and again rested afterwards until he was ready to attack the squats for another set. If we were to cut down some of the rest between the sets, we would have no choice, but to reduce the load each set or drop the target number of reps. One method is not superior over the others as long as all three are trained in a progressive manner. 

After performing squats and pullover Sean moves to the barbell bench press for three all out sets in a descending format of ten, eight, six. He prefers the barbell bench press movement, while I prefer the Medx Chest press. Neither tool is more functional then the other. They both allow you to progressively load the muscles involved in horizontal abduction of the humorous (upper body horizontal push). He pairs this movement with the Hammer Strength Iso Row. He always chooses the Hammer Strength Iso Row movement over the barbell row because he feels it is a safer and more effective way to overload the muscles of the upper back. Sean doesn’t look at free weights and machines as an either-or decision. He understands basic muscle function and decides on which specific exercise is the best for him to use on each major muscle group, regardless of the tool used. He doesn’t get caught up in the functional fitness debates or myths that athletes need to use free weights and older trainees need to use machines, because he understands there is no one exercise that he must use, since he is not competing in a specific strength sport. 

His last paired set consisted of Pulldowns and the nautilus power plus lateral raise for two sets each. The lateral raise is iso-lateral, meaning both arms move independently, just like the Medx pullover and Hammer Strength Iso-Lateral Row.  The advantages to incorporating iso-lateral equipment are you force both limbs to work independently. This can be used to identify strength difference left to right and allow you to isolate un-injured limbs.  We omitted the vertical push for lateral raises and chose to focus more on upper back today, because his next workout incorporates incline, vertical and horizontal pressing. Most weeks he will perform vertical pressing in two different workouts, some workouts he will perform vertical pressing and lateral raises on one day and still perform vertical pressing on the next, it just all depends on how we decide to set up the training. Each week at a minimum we cover the horizontal and vertical push/pull planes of motion for the upper body, squat and hip hinge movement to ensure Sean is strong from top to bottom and front to back.

To finish up the workout Sean completes a quad-set (meaning four exercises) of dumbbell bicep curls, cable triceps pushdowns, Nautilus Four-way Neck flexion/extension and the Medx Lumbar Extension machine for two rounds total. These are less-taxing exercises that do not interfere with each other’s performance, allowing for a reduce rest period in-between exercises. These four isolation exercises fill in the strength gaps missed from the compound exercises. It is a delicate balance of incorporating critical isolations exercises without deemphasizing the basic planes of motion and turning the workout into a marathon of different exercises. Other exercises such as calf raises, shrugs, wrist rollers and leg extensions are sprinkled in throughout his other workouts.

Sean trains all of his major muscle’s groups twice a week with a mix of barbells, dumbbells and good machines. He utilizes the heaviest weight he can for the prescribed goal in good form where his muscles are performing the lifting and lowering of the weight and always adds load when he earns the right to. He rests in-between workouts and never trains the same muscles back-to-back days. Sean eats high quality food with plenty of protein and limits the amount of alcohol and junk food he consumes. Outside of the gym he runs a variety of distances for cardiovascular health, trains law enforcement tactics, weapon handling and firing on the range and studies state and federal laws to ensure he is mastering his craft. 

Training principles do not change from individual to individual. The bicep supinates and flexes the same on a football player as it does on a Dentist and the way to overload it is the same. The tools/exercises selected, sequence of exercises and protocols used are specific to Sean’s goals and preferences, but the training principles used are the same for all trainees. Bob Whelan summarized it perfectly in his article “Dinosaur Women” when he stated “muscle fiber is human" ... and "It is the training GOAL that determines how the principles are used”. It doesn’t matter what your sex, profession, or age is, the strength training principles are "Human" and the same for a young tactical athlete like Sean as they are for a middle-aged woman who is a lawyer. The training goal determines how the principles are used. What they do outside of the gym as a result of their career, passion or sport is a completely separate activity and is not always the same as the goal.

Read More »

The Merits of the Chest Expander - By Alexandre LeVasseur

The chest expander also known as Strandpulling is making a comeback. Indeed the home gym apparatus almost became extinct like the iron horseshoe bender or the iron boot.

Bells of steel recently released their own high-quality chest expander that is more affordable than the ones made by Robert Baraban. Having them both The one made by Robert Baraban is better suited for competitive strand pulling and he offers stronger steel springs for higher “poundage” . 

It’s difficult to imagine it now, but a100 years ago chest expanders were all the rage. Earle Liederman , Eugen Sandow , Alfred Danks , Thomas Inch and others offered their own Chest expanders and  courses. Their popularity lasted  well into the 50’s and 60’s With Iron game legends such as John Grimek, Steve Stanko and Reg Park praising cable training. 

Bob Hoffman even dedicated entire chapters in two of his seminal books “ Big Arms : How to develop them, “ and “the York Advanced methods of weight training “ 

In chapter 14 of  “Big arms : How the develop them, “ he wrote the following: 

“Cables serve best in developing the muscles which are so conspicuous in the male physique. They impart a certain shapeliness to the physique which cannot be acquired in any other way. They build magnificent shoulders, a fine development of the upper back and powerful, admiration creating arms “ 

John Grimek made a similar assessment in a Strength and Health article from 1958.

“It's a certainty that fellows who use cables exclusively almost always develop some outstanding feature, such as exceptional arms, massive shoulders, rounded chests or muscular backs. Unlike any other form of training cables do stimulate muscular development faster.” 

I incorporated strand pulling exercises on my “off” days to supplement my three days a week full-body routine. It targeted my  biceps, triceps, lats,  traps , deltoids, shoulders and upper back in ways that I could not easily have done with the barbells and dumbbells alone. It was in my case, the missing piece I had been looking for. 

Another advantage of the chest expander is that it is small and easy to carry. It can fit in a small bag. While travelling I could clock in a workout that is on par with a barbell and dumbbell for the muscle group I mentioned earlier.  You cannot “cheat” any movement with it. This offered me better muscle growth. You cannot use momentum or inertia . The steel springs won’t allow it. Also it’s very easy on the joints which makes Strand pull less taxing on the body. That means I will still be able to train with it even in advanced age. 

It does have its limitations. Without additional attachments you cannot safely work the other muscle groups such as abdominal, pectorals,  legs and lower back . Also strand pulling alone cannot give you the same amount of strength and muscle development as barbells and dumbbells would.  Bob Hoffman mentions the case of an  Argentinian Strongman named Belvidere Del Monte. It is said he had developed 17¾ inch biceps with his chest expanders alone. However, as Bob Hoffman would note. 

“He concentrated so much on arm development and cable pulling strength, neglecting his lower body, that he had only a 21½ inch thigh – not much larger than a really strong man’s arm. He had only a mediocre ability at handling weights because the largest and most powerful muscles of the body – the legs and lower back – had been neglected.”

That being said,  there are some individuals out there who train exclusively  to have big shoulders and big biceps. They will be more than happy with the Chest Expander. It is I believe the cheapest and more versatile option for a home gym. 

Even if you train solely for muscle development, you will gain some level of strength as Siegmund Klein said it best , “ train for shape, and strength will follow.” 

Read More »