CST Free Weight Exercises By Scott Sonnon

(more…)

I’m headed to a Sox game tonight and have plenty to do around the facility before I go, so I thought I’d just use today to throw out a few quick reading recommendations:
Re-Building the Reverse Hyper - This great newsletter from Mike Robertson goes into some excellent detail on the biomechanics of a very controversial [...]
(more…)

If you have followed this blog for a while you’ll have seen the discussions of “functional training”. The High Intensity Training position more or less is that there is no such thing. Everything is specific. You can develop strength and fitness, but the sports specific skills must be developed separately by practising those skills - i.e. bench presses will make you stronger but to be a better puncher you must punch well.

Luke went through all this in the interview here.

Vern Gambetta had a good piece on his blog today on this area:

General or Specific

Jay Johnson asked me to comment on balancing specificity and generality in training. Jay is a middle distance and distance coach, but I will broaden this to include all events and all sports.

Obviously the highest degree of specificity of training and the most direct transfer occurs when you do the activity itself. Frankly this is where training has advanced significantly over the last sixty years. We realized that staying highly specific would result in diminishing returns. We need to balance the actual activity with other training tasks that would improve the actual activity. This is where a fundamental disconnect began. As time progressed, especially in the last twenty years we have progressed down a path of just doing work, doing exercises that looking like the sport or event, but that we overloaded and slowed down to the point where they had no transfer. I think the distortion and misuse of the Mach drills is a good example. They are not technique drills. They are drills that break the stride cycle into its component parts in order to strengthen through a full range of motion and improve dynamic flexibility. If done correctly they have a high degree of specificity in terms of special strength development and flexibility. Certainly better transfer that riding a bike or using a stair stepper for a runner.

To me it comes down to similar or same.

Similar is OK, but you need to understand what you are trying to accomplish. I like to think of it this way

1) The actual activity

2) First Derivative – similar or big component parts, no compromise on speed of movement
2) Second Derivative – Similar not attempting to replicate the speed of the movement, probably with some resistance
3) Third Derivative – very far removed, any similarities are coincidental.

In laying out a training program I try to balance all three. They all need to be there during all phases of the training year, just with a different emphasis. I think a good example of this is what I read of Roger Federer’s training. They always touch on fundamental movements and they always play tennis.

What I think has happened especially in the last twenty years is that there has arisen an emphasis on general work to get them fit. Fit for what?

Just making them tired does not make them better. This is alarming trend in middle distance and distance training where too much mindless circuit work is justified as “general strength.” I maintain that that is just work, work that could be better planned and sequenced to specifically strength the movements that would make them better runners.

As usual I am quite outside the norm on this, but I have seen it done better. Look at Coe’s training. The high school runner Peter Callahan who ran 4:05.2 in the mile this year used the “general work” very wisely. We need to wake up and realize that it is not about exercises and making them sore and tired it is about preparing for their race or sport.

(more…)

(more…)

In another post, I had a comment basically saying to not cut calories too much because you’ll then stop any weight loss because you slow your metabolism by eating so little.
I also like to call this …
The Starvation Mode Myth!
Why do I call it a “myth”? Because most people never go into it … simply [...]

Related posts:

1. Calories and Weight Loss 101 One of the things people misunderstand the most is calories…
2. A Low Calorie Diet - Essential For Weight Loss? In this article, I’m going to address the question “Is…
3. How Many Calories To Lose Fat/Gain Muscle? [caption id=”attachment_1302″ align=”alignleft” width=”300″ caption=”How Many Calories Do You Need?…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
(more…)

It is my extreme honor to welcome three gentlemen to the best head coaching staff in the world. I feel no reluctance to gush by saying so, because nowhere, in any organization, company or club is such a diverse, comprehensive and deep level of expertise present as in the CST Head Coaching Staff.
Vik Hothi of [...]
(more…)

Instead of doing a post analyzing a scientific study, I wanted to make a list of random fitness tips that came to my head when thinking about staying in shape and eating well, etc…

Related posts:

1. "Learn Fitness Tips from YODA, You Will"
2. Fitness and Diet Tips for The Holidays?

(more…)

I figured that this week, I’d make my normally-subscriber-only newsletter public, as it’s some content I’ve been meaning to get out there for quite some time.  Long story short, I’ve received a lot of emails just recently (as well as some in-person questions) asking me what I think of Crossfit for baseball players and, more [...]
(more…)

…that is what I make of this study. Fat is not great…..but fat fit and active helps because the type of fat and its location is changed.

Fat distribution in men of different waist girth, fitness level and exercise habit

Background: The risk of chronic disease is lower in obese men who are fit and active than obese men who are unfit and inactive.

Methods/Objectives: Magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy were used to assess total and regional adipose tissue in 13 men who were slim, fit and active (the slim-fit), in 12 men who were slim, unfit and inactive (the slim-unfit), in 13 men who were fat, fit and active (the fat-fit) and in 12 men who were fat, unfit and inactive (the fat-unfit), in order to investigate the hypothesis that visceral fat and liver fat are lower in the fat-fit than the fat-unfit. Waist girth was used to distinguish slim men (90 cm) and fat men (100 cm). Maximal oxygen consumption was used to identify fit men (above average for age) and unfit men (average or below for age). Fit men reported at least 60 min of vigorous aerobic activity per week and unfit men reported no regular moderate or vigorous activity in the last 2 years.

Results: Total fat was not significantly different in the slim-fit and the slim unfit, but the proportion of internal fat was significantly lower (P<0.05) and the proportion of visceral fat was almost significantly lower (P=0.06) in the slim-fit than all other groups. Total fat was not significantly different in the fat-fit and the fat-unfit, but visceral fat and liver fat were significantly lower in the fat-fit than the fat-unfit (P<0.01). Waist girth and years of exercise explained 84% of the variance in total fat, waist girth and maximal oxygen consumption explained 70% of the variance in visceral fat, and waist girth alone explained 25% of the variance in liver fat.

Conclusion: Chronic disease risk may be lower because visceral fat and liver fat are lower in men who are fat, fit and active.

(more…)

(more…)