Breaking Plateaus: the MilitaryPress

Standard

I’m a big fan of the military press (aka the press, the standing press, the overhead press). I like putting the weight overhead. It’s a challenging total-body exercise that in my mind probably delivers more useful strength and skill than something like a bench press. I’d like to press 200 lbs. which is my body weight. For that reason, I tend to lift heavy and I typically don’t go above five reps per set. My progress stalled for a while so I went on the hunt for ways to move it along. This led me to read up on all kinds of interesting ways to break through plateaus.  (Admittedly, a torn ACL didn’t help my pressing. My press was slowing down though prior to the tear.)

To get stronger we generally need to add weight to whatever it is that we’re lifting. This is the simplest, most obvious way to get stronger. It’s inevitable though that at some point our progress will slow and we’ll have to find other ways to move forward in our strength training. Here are a few methods I’ve used to improve my press:

  • Weight: A lot of people tend to lift in the same rep range. I often see people in commercial gyms lifting in the 10-15 rep neighborhood. A good way to make progress is to add weight and move down in reps. The 5-rep and below range is good for getting stronger. In contrast, if we’ve been lifting in the low-rep range, there might be a benefit to reducing weight and adding reps.
  • Speed: We can subtract weight and move faster. To get fast we need to move fast. If we reduce the weight (40%-60% of your 1-rep max) and move very fast then we get a very different type of powerful stimulus to the muscles. I’ll talk about this more below.
  • Different exercises and movement patterns: If progress stalls on the barbell military press then we might want to switch to an incline barbell press, or a dumbbell military press, or a seated military press, or a behind-the-neck press. You see my point? Choosing an exercise that’s the “same but different” can help us make progress in our main lift.
  • Bring up weak points: I’m not much of a fan of bodybuilding-type training in which individual muscles are emphasized. That’s not to say there isn’t a place for this approach. If we look at the particular muscles involved in a given lift then we might use exercises to isolate those muscles and make them stronger and/or add mass. For instance, we could use tricep extensions in order to strengthen that piece of our press. Similarly, we might look at supporting musculature–the upper back for instance–and target those muscles to a stronger foundation from which to press.

Here’s some more on my experience with dynamic effort, “same but different” and some bodybuilding work.

Dynamic Effort

Speed and strength live in the same house. They are very close acquaintances. They have a lot of physiological similarities. Training one tends to help the other. Fast twitch muscle fibers are our strong and fast fibers. They should be trained with heavy weights as well as high velocities.

As we add weight to the bar, the bar slows down. We create more force but we don’t create speed. If we want to train speed then we need to lighten the load considerably and move a lot faster. The Westside Conjugate Method addresses both strength and speed during the week. Max Effort (ME) day has lifters lifting very heavy weights and generating a lot of force but at a slow velocity. Dynamic Effort (DE) day has the lifter using much lighter loads moved at a high velocity. This creates explosion.

Incorporating a dynamic effort day into your lifting may help you break through any current plateaus you may be experiencing. If you’ve never employed the DE method, then you probably have a nice well of untapped potential and you’ll likely see impressive results fairly quickly.

I’ve from pressing 135 lbs. for 2 reps to 145 lbs. for 3 reps in about four weeks since incorporating the DE method. Cool! As advocated by Louie, the DE day came 72 hours after the ME day. I typically did 10 sets of 2 reps, adding 5 lbs. each week.

At no time did I become anything like exhausted by the DE work.  That isn’t the point. Speed is the point. If you get tired then you’ll slow down. Don’t expect to experience a typical workout feeling with DE work.

Louie wrote an article titled Westside Military Press Training for Mike Mahler’s Aggressive Strength site. Here are the tips:

  • Do the seated press with dumbbells. Choose three weights for example 100 lbs, 75 lbs, and 50 lbs. Work on setting a repetition record with one dumbbell weight. the reps should range from 10 to 25 reps.
  • Do dumbbell extensions or barbell extensions for special work along with rear, side and front raises.
  • Do barbell pressing in the following manner. Ten sets of three reps in a three- week wave. 70% the 1st week 75% the second week and 80% the third week. Pendulum back to 70% and start over. Second day 72 hours later do max effort work.
  • Use chains on the bar or JUMPSTRETCH bands to accommodate resistance. (Editor’s note: Usually as the bar gets close to lockout you will naturally slow the bar down. The bands keep the resistance on all the way to the end).
  • Work up to new PR in the incline press.
  • Do rack lockout work on the high pin where 10%-15% highest weight can be done.

Developing the Overhead Press is another good article on Mahler’s site. If you like to press then read it!

The Conjugate System can get a little complicated and hard to understand. For a very good and concise explanation of the system, check out Jordan Syatt’s article The Westside Conjugate System: A User’s Guide.

Other ways to train speed (either lower or upper body) include the following:

  • jumping
  • medicine ball throws
  • plyometric pushups
  • power pull-ups: Do these explosively for 1-3 reps.

Same but different

I’ve varied the way I press–but I’ve kept pressing. In the book Easy Strength, Pavel Tsatsouline talkes about the “same but different” concept. With this concept, we take the main lift we’re working on–the press–and find some way to change it just a little. We offer a little variety to the nervous system, we learn a slightly new skill, and we can improve our main lift.

A similar process is proposed by Bill Starr in the book the Strongest Shall Survive. This system employs a heavy/light/medium approach to lifting where the exercises are changed slightly between each workout. For example, the back squat is used on the heavy and medium days and the front squat is used on the light day. Presses alternate from the bench press to the military press to the behind-the-neck press. Read the book to learn more.

In my case, I’ve incorporated the standing behind-the-neck press as well as seated dumbbell or kettlebell presses in which I sit on the floor with my legs straight out in front. I do these for reps.
Here are some examples “same but different” changes we could incorporate into our press routine

  • military press to behind-the-neck press to incline press
  • standing press to seated press
  • handstand or incline pushups
  • dumbbells and/or kettlebells in place of the barbell

Other things

I’ve also incorporated back-off sets after my heavy pressing days. I reduce the weight considerably and press for 10-12 reps. I expect this to help build some mass.

I’ve used dumbbell rear delt flyes to help build my upper back. I do these for 8-15 reps typically and I vary the weight each workout. This is the type of bodybuilding isolation work that I haven’t done in years.

 Finally

I’ve just scratched the surface with this stuff so I anticipate continued progress. As my ACL heals I expect progress to accelerate quite a bit. This has been a very interesting process. I’ve enjoyed learning about and applying these concepts, particularly the dynamic effort work. I just recently started a little bit of jumping. I expect this to help my squat and deadlift. I plan to keep a speed day as part of my workout plans.

Coaching Movement: Internal vs. External Cues

Standard

I recently listened to an interview with Todd Hargrove of BetterMovement.org at the Well Rounded Athlete.   At about 21:30 in the interview, Todd discusses the idea of internal cues vs external cues as they pertain to learning new movement skills. I found it to be a fascinating concept and one that pertains very strongly to my current study of the FASTER Global curriculum.

What are internal and external cues?

  • Internal cue: The athlete focuses on his/her body parts and how they move.
  • External cue: The athlete focuses on affecting something in his/her environment. He/she focuses on the outcome of his/her movement.

Below are some examples of internal and external cues from an NSCA article titled What We Say Matters, Part I.

(What We Say Matters, Part II is also very interesting. I won’t discuss the whole thing but it goes into feedback frequency, or how much information coaches should give athletes while they’re learning a new skill. Turns out a good bit less feedback is better than giving feedback 100% of the time. Coaches and trainers should definitely read it. On to the internal/external cues.)

Table 1provides examples of internal versus external focus cues for different movements and note that analogies can be considered external cues.

Internal Cue External Cue
Sprinting: Acceleration
  • Extend your hip (knee)
  • Activate your quad (glute)
  • Stomach tight
  • Drive the ground away
  • Explode off the ground
  • Brace up
Change of Direction
  • Hips down
  • Feet wide
  • Drive through big toe
  • Roof over head
  • Train tracks or wide base
  • Push the ground away
Jumping
  • Explode through hips
  • Snap through ankles
  • Drive hips through head
  • Touch the sky
  • Snap the ground away
  • Drive belt buckle up
Olympic Lifting: Snatch
  • Drive feet through ground
  • Drive chest to ceiling
  • Snap hips through the bar
  • Drive feet through ground
  • Drive chest to ceiling
  • Snap hips through the bar
  • Push the ground away
  • Drive/jump vertical
  • Snap bar to ceiling
  • Snap and drop under bar

Which is best?  Internal or External? 

The article cites research that demonstrates internal cues to be more effective than external cues. More evidence comes in an article from Strength and Conditioning Research (a great resource) titled How Much Difference Do External Cues Make? The following studies are cited and they’re summarized:

  • Marchant (2009) – the researchers found that an external attentional focus led to greater force and torque during isokinetic elbow flexion movements while simultaneously decreasing muscle activation as measured by EMG.
  • Porter (2010– the researchers found that directing attention toward jumping as far past the starting line as possible had a much greater effect at increasing broad jump distance compared to focusing attention on extending the knees as fast as possible.
  • Wulf (2010– the researchers found that an external focus led to increased jump height with simultaneously lower EMG activity compared to an internal focus of attention.
  • Wu (2012– the researchers found that an external attentional focus let to increased broad jump distances despite not affecting peak force production compared to an internal attentional focus.
  • Makaruk (2012– the researchers found that 9 weeks of plyometric training with an external focus led to greater standing long jump and countermovement jump (but not drop jump) performance compared to training with an internal focus.
  • Porter (2012– the researchers found that an external focus far away from the body led to greater results than an internal focus or an external focus near the body in terms of standing long jump performance.

“So in general, the main factor that is associated with external focus is an increase in performance. Also, there may be a tendency for reduced EMG activity at the same time. This is interesting, as it may be a mirror image of what happens with internal focus.”

The reference to reduced EMG means that with an external focus, more muscles are actually relaxed during the movement. The benefit to that is that the muscles acting in opposition to the movement are more relaxed, thus allowing for better movement. If too many muscles are contracted then we may move slow.

How does an external rather than internal focus result in superior outcomes? The NSCA article cites work by Dr. Gabrielle Wulf, Director, Motor Performance and Learning Laboratory at UNLV:

“Wulf et al. (17) defined the hypothesis, stating that focusing on body movements (i.e. internal) increases consciousness and ‘constrains the motor system by interfering with automatic motor control process that would ‘normally’ regulate the movement,’ and therefore by focusing on the movement outcome (i.e., external) allows the ‘motor system to more naturally self-organize, unconstrained by the interference caused by conscious control attempts.’” 

From other research by Wulf in another article:

“Wulf et al. (2001) explained this benefit of an external focus of attention by postulating the ‘constrained action hypothesis’. According to this view, individuals who utilize an internal focus constrain or ‘freeze”’their motor system by consciously attempting to control it. This also seems to occur when individuals are not given attentional focus instructions (2). In contrast, an external focus promotes the use of more automatic control processes, thereby enhancing performance and learning (3,5).”

To me this suggests that the external cueing allows us to tap into reflexes, reactions and movements controlled by the autonomic nervous system. I think any athlete has experienced the situation where we think too much and our performance falters. We think very hard about the individual components of what we’re trying to do and the result is we don’t ski well, we don’t drive a golf ball well, we miss an Olympic lift. In contrast, we’ve been in that “zone” where things just happen.  We don’t think, we do. Everything is coordinated and we’re barely aware of what we’re doing. It seems that the external cues are the best way to get to our ideal way of moving.

Is there a place for internal cues?

So the research tells us that external cues are superior to internal cues. Does that mean we should do away with all internal cues? That issue has been discussed in an article by Bret Contreras titled What Types of Cues Should Trainers and Coaches Provide? and an article by Sam Lahey titled the Science and Applications of Coaching Cues. They’re both in agreement that internal cues are sometimes the best way to go when coaching. As often happens, the coaches in the field have some disagreement with researchers.

Contreras does a very good job in discussing his observations of when internal cues might be superior to external cues, particularly when it comes to getting an athlete or client to feel his or her glutes.  This is from his article:

“When I train beginner clients, it takes me considerable time to get their lumbpelvic-hip complex working ideally during squats, deadlifts, back extensions, and glute bridges. In my opinion, external cueing is not ideal for improving form in the most rapid manner possible. My belief is that internal cueing will get the individual to where you want them to be in a much more efficient manner.

This applies to preventing lumbar flexion in a deadlift, preventing valgus collapse in a squat, or preventing lumbar hyperextension and anterior pelvic tilt in a back extension or hip thrust.

1) Palpating different regions of their body to make them aware of the various parts involved and what those parts are doing,

3) Having them stop approximately 3/4 the way up on a hip thrust and practicing anterior and posterior pelvic tilt so they can understand how to prevent anterior tilt from occuring,

5) Being ‘hands-on’ during their performance and manually helping place their pelvis in proper position, manually setting the core in neutral, manually pushing the hips upward to ensure full ROM is reached, and poking the glutes to make sure they’re on and the hammies to make sure they’re not overly activated, and

I don’t believe that this heavily ‘internal’ approach can be improved-upon by a purely external cueing approach.”

I tend to agree with Contreras.  I’ve often found that I need to bring awareness to one piece of the overall movement puzzle (glutes are the best example). I want clients particularly aware of glute contraction at the very top of a squat, deadlift or kettlebell swing. Contracting the glutes tightly at the top of these movements is important for keeping the pelvis and lumbar spine in good, safe position and for getting the most “oomph” into the lift. Before I teach these exercises, I want the client to know what it feels like to squeeze their glutes. I simply want them to know what the glute contracting feels like. I don’t need them to move fast or lift heavy. In this case, an internal cue seems to be the best way to go. I’m not sure of a more effective cue than saying “Squeeze your butt as tight as possible,” when I want to make someone aware of their glutes.

(Though now that I think about it, “Squeeze a quarter between your butt cheeks as tight as possible” might actually be an external cue that would work very well.)

Contreras also cites the cues “chest up” and “knees out” during the squat as simple, effective and commonly used internal cues that often work well during the squat. Again, I agree with him that phrases like this are usually effective enough that we don’t necessarily need to construct similar type phrases with an external focus.

Finally, Contreras says that he typically uses more internal cues with beginners during the initial instruction period. As the athlete gains experience and expertise, he moves on to more external cues with the idea of getting maximum performance.  That process matches what I’ve seen and experienced with my own clients and athletes.

Thoughts

The task for coaches and trainers is to use language to express to an athlete how he or she should move. We may use a description that makes perfect sense to us, yet is completely confusing to the athlete. If that’s the case then we need to pick another description of that movement. Further, a description that’s crystal clear to one athlete may make no sense at all to another. From what the research says, using these external cues is probably the best way to get our athletes and clients to move the way we want them to. We may however need several different external cues to paint the best picture in the athlete’s head. If an internal cue works best then we should use it.

What I’ve learned from reading these articles is that:

  1. Less is more. Too much coaching confuses the athlete. Fewer/simpler cues are best.
  2. Directing the athlete’s mind outward will by-and-large get the best performance out of him or her.
  3. Some degree of internal cueing may be necessary from time to time. We don’t want to throw the baby out with all the internal cueing bathwater.

I think we coaches would do well to think of several ways of describing exercises. A good time to do this is during our own workouts. How many ways can we describe moving a barbell or kettlebell? What is important during a push-up and how can we verbalize those points? What are some external cues to describe good running technique?  Or weightlifting techniques?

This whole concept of cues is another example example of that the real target with exercise is from the neck up.  The brain is the real target here, not the muscles, joints or bones.

Science, Belief, Psychology and Nonsense

Standard

“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

I want very much to be on the side of science. The scientific method is perhaps the most powerful and influential tool in all of human existence. A long line of dedicated scientists have blessed us with electric light, the eradication of smallpox and polio, a steady food supply, clean water, air conditioning, and every bit of computer technology ever known just to name a very few things. That said, I will admit my own confusion and I will admit adherence to various practices and ideas that don’t hold up to vigorous scrutiny. (I’m trying to do better.)

Mention the word “science” to some people and they’ll take it as a dirty word. Some don’t like the pointy-headed image of scientists telling us certain unfortunate truths (climate change is man-made for instance.) Others among us have been scared by genetically modified food (GMOs) and vaccines. This is unfortunate for a lot of reasons. Many of us walk around in needless fear for instance. More specifically, fear of vaccines has led to needless outbreaks of disease. Famously, Steve Jobs delayed rejected science-based cancer treatment for complimentary/alternative medicine (CAM.) According to his biographer, Jobs regretted this decision.

Some people think that “science” equates to “Western medicine,” or “pharmaceuticals.” Not true. There’s plenty of non-scientific practices and methods employed by modern medicine and the pill companies. In fact, good, thorough, rigorous science can expose the ineffective or dangerous aspects of medicine and drugs. In Bad Science and Bad PharmaBen Goldacre has done a great job discussing the misuse and abuse of science by both complimentary/alternative medicine and the pharmaceutical industry.

Skepticism

Skepticism is useful. This is a questioning point of view. A skeptic requires solid evidence before he or she believes something. Being skeptical means you’ve set a high bar for your beliefs. You don’t accept information at face value. Nor do you accept anecdotal evidence or information gained from an “experiment of one.” Healthy skepticism can save us money and may save our health. Here are some things that I understand about skepticism: When we hear about a “miracle cure,” “secret trick to whatever-it-is-you’re-dreaming-about,” “startling breakthrough” or “what the doctors don’t want you to know,” the skeptic in us should come to life and pay close attention to what we’re being told. It’s probably nonsense!

(BTW, skepticism doesn’t equal cynicism. Skepticism is not a negative thing. A skeptic simply asks for valid evidence to be shown.)

Correlation and Causation

Today I wore green shorts. I didn’t throw up. Green shorts prevent nausea! They protect against throwing up! I know it to be true because I was there and I witnessed it. That’s proof enough for me. “I know what works for me.”  

Does this sound familiar? Does this line of thinking make sense?

Here’s another example: Someone gets acupuncture for seasonal allergies (or any other ailment you care to think of) and some time soon after they feel better. Someone could see this as “proof” that acupuncture “works” to cure allergies. So every time this person feels their allergies come on, he or she gets acupuncture and soon the symptoms are gone. This could be fairly convincing to a lot of people that acupuncture works very well at curing an illness.

Acupuncture correlates to the resolution of the illness. But did acupuncture cause the illness to go away? Here are some things to think about: Why do we seek treatment for an illness? Typically people seek help because the symptoms are too tough to deal with. Guess what usually comes on the heels of our bad symptoms whether or not we seek treatment or not: We feel better! There’s a normal course that most illnesses take and it doesn’t usually end with us in the grave. Rather, our immune system fights off the illness and we feel fine, acupuncture or no acupunctureChiropractic adjustment or no adjustmentHomeopathy or no homeopathy. So what would we say if someone got acupuncture and they felt worse? What if someone did not receive acupuncture and he or she felt better soon anyway? All of these are possible outcomes. We might think that acupuncture doesn’t have much relationship to illness at all.

Fitness

“I consider corrective exercise to be the alternative medicine of the fitness field.”
– Coach Nick Tumminello 

That statement has given me a lot to chew on, and I am coming around to agree with him. The fitness universe abounds in various systems and methods that promise better movement and less pain. All of them are sold by people with impressive credentials who use technical and scientific-sounding terminology. I have absolutely fell under the spell of some of these systems.

Now I look back and realize that either a) I should’ve been more skeptical towards some of the claims I’ve heard or b) because I was searching desperately for a solution to my 10-year-long chronic back pain, I was ready to believe many things told to me by those who spoke with certainty–even though I tiny voice in the back of my head may have been questioning those claims.

Tumminello has written a series of posts on his blog that discusses the psychological factors that make us susceptible to faulty thinking. He’s aimed this series at the fitness community but he really discusses psychological tendencies that all humans seem to share–no matter how smart or well-informed we are. Why Smart Trainers Believe Stupid Things: Part 1 discusses bias toward positive evidence.  In Part 2 we learn how “authorities” can use jargon and inflated language to sway us. Part 3 goes into regression to the mean (discussed previously) and why it’s easy to believe a given treatment may “work” when in fact the thing the treatment was meant to fix has simply run its natural course. Psychological reasons why coaches will never stop arguing; training debates are a waste of time; and the fitness industry will never be united (long title) is very similar in tone and content to the previous articles.

These articles were very illuminating to me. If you’re a critically thinking fitness professional, they may help sharpen your thinking quite a bit.

New Thinking

As I’ve said, I’ve swallowed some nonsense and falsely ascribed amazing results to methods that simply didn’t do what I believed. The health & fitness field is perhaps more awash in phony gurus and foolish hocus pocus than almost any discipline on earth.  (Religion may take 1st place.) From medicine to food to exercise–especially corrective exercise–there are numerous minefields out there. Misinformation and half-baked nonsense is widespread on the Internet so I must be careful what to believe.

The best snake-oil salesmen blend truth with bull$hit.  (Dr. Oz comes to mind.) I need to examine each statement and claim from the person making it. I shouldn’t give the benefit of the doubt to anyone based on their credentials, popularity or status.

Rather than seek out information that confirms my beliefs, I need to look for evidence that actually disproves what I believe. (That’s a tough one!)  I should be prepared to set aside my beliefs when solid evidence contradicts those beliefs.

There are a lot of cases where making leaps in thinking leads to inaccuracies.  Nutrition is rife with this type of thing. The fat-causes-heart-disease idea seems to be in this category. A researcher may expect that A causes B–animal fat consumption causes heart disease for example–but this conclusion may be based on animal studies or educated guesses. What should happen isn’t necessarily what actually happens, yet many of our Federal dietary guidelines have been based on assumptions, not evidence.

I need to be (more) aware of my biases and my emotions. I should be aware of my herd mentality and I shouldn’t be afraid to ask questions. If a proponent of something wonderful can’t or won’t answer my questions, or uses excessively big and complex language in their explanation, I should beware.

Other non-BS resources

I’ve found some useful resources for evidence-based information. There must be many more out there. Here are a few:

  • Genetic Literacy Project: Lots of good information on GMOs.
  • Science Based Medicine: A wide range of medical information. From vaccines to chiropractic to acupuncture, nutrition, evolution, veterinary medicine and a lot more.
  • Soma Simple: This for manual therapists, physical therapists, pain management people and coaches. It’s a very high bar to cross if you want to put out your ideas. The group here demands evidence. I’ve learned a ton about pain science here and I’ve been made aware of a lot of the exercise baloney that’s out there.
  • Evidence Based Fitness: Bryan Chung does a great job of discussing and laying out the research facts on the latest fitness research.
  • Exercise Biology: Similar to Evidence Based Fitness. Anoop T. Balachandran discusses the evidence pertaining to strength training, pain, nutrition, supplements and more. His post on pain should be required reading by all trainers and coaches.
  • How to Detect Bullshit: My article wouldn’t be complete without a link to this fine piece of writing from Scott Berkun. I might need to read it several times.