Yeah, I've been slacking lately. Ending the cycling season and getting started in a more random training direction definitely took the edge off my focus. Nice mental break, really. And that's the idea, right? I've put on 10 pounds or so and feel strong in new ways. I'm also sore in new ways. That's not always so good. The thing about riding a bike is that you are rarely sore and rarely feel injured. Pushing and pulling heavy weights around in the gym, on the other hand, can create both circumstances. Although I like to reserve the "age card" for when I really need it (say, getting my ass handed to me by a 20 year old) I might have to bring it out for a moment talking about weight training into middle age. Let's face it. My connective tissue is not what it used to be. Lower serum testosterone and growth hormone, a normal byproduct of repeated birthdays, create a more fragile organism. Subjecting that structure to heavy loads and/or repetition can wreak more havoc than in younger athletes. I must proceed with caution. Trying to keep my enthusiasm under control as strength increases. But I digress...
Obviously, I also took a writing break for a few weeks. Guess I wanted some relief from my self-imposed deadline. I'm starting to feel the itch to spread some love again. Luckily, a good friend and thinker on all things exercise and training prompted this following piece with a training question he posed to me a couple of days ago. Without further adieu…
Matthew writes:
"What, exactly, is the physiological difference between lifting “heavy” and doing a sport-specific activity to failure? I’ve been reading a lot about “functional strength”, which doesn’t seem to relate – at least not directly – to doing heavy weights. I’m asking this both because I have experienced the gains that intensive weight room work can deliver, and because I genuinely don’t know the answer. If, for example, I do one-legged lunge squats with a 40lb weight vest and holding two, 40lb dumbbells (120lbs total) and this weight maxes me out at 7 reps… what is the difference between this and doing one-legged presses on a sled with 2x that weight, but the same reps? I know I get more focused intensity from the latter because I’m not worried about tipping over. But it doesn’t “feel” that much different."
Oh boy. This is a loaded question and brings up lots of little sub topics for me. I'll try to stay on track. There are a few key words and/or phrases in Matthew's inquiry that can guide my answer and, hopefully, keep me focused. Really, the question here boils down to using weight training to enhance our performance in a given sport, right? Back in the 80's, Nike helped coin the term "cross training" and developed a multi-million dollar shoe industry around it. Just Do It. Remember that? Well, today it's "functional training". Not as sexy but there's money being made on products designed with the concept in mind. Might not have the heft of Nike's impact into the parallel realm decades ago but it's still pushing a similar idea. Do one thing to improve another.
First of all, a disclaimer. In general, I think "cross training", at least in how it was expressed in the late 80's, is mostly bullshit. Running is not going to help your cycling, swimming won't make you a better runner and backgammon won't help your power clean. Doing all these different things will give you a nice rounded fitness base (except for the backgammon, I suppose) but doing one doesn't really lead to an increase in performance in another. I firmly believe that, in terms of economy of training hours, an athlete is simply best off practicing their sport. That's not to say that variety doesn't help the brain through periods of training monotony but it's not going to take you to the next performance level directly. I think it's the unique complex neurologic patterns of most sports that prevent them from crossing over. Fitness is very mode specific.
In spite of these facts, the majority of coaches in various sports advocate strength training as part of a conditioning program for their athletes. This seems to fly in the face of my statements above. In a way, it does. If one considers the act of moving a weight to be just another motor pattern to learn then it is, indeed, a waste of time. But that's not why we lift weights, now, is it? No, the only reason to add a resistance program to one's training regime is to get stronger…period! Weight training allows athletes to subject their muscles to forces greater than can be usually experienced during the performance of their sport. Most sport movement patterns can be somewhat replicated in the weight room. Any sport requiring propulsion of some sort (running, cycling, etc.) involves opening the hip and extending the knee. Thankfully, these are easy to do under load with weights (i.e.. squat, dead lift, lunge, etc.).
When I first started cycling in the mid 80's, I was told that using weight training in the off-season to prepare for cycling was stupid and did not work. When I inquired as to the program these opinionated cyclists used it typically involved attempting to replicate the demands of cycling on, say, a leg press or leg extension machine. They used relatively light weights and did high repetitions. Well, no surprise that this program failed to produce any notable improvement. No, this type of "energy system" work is best done on the bike. Now, using heavy weights in a complex movement like a front or back squat with a weight that allows a 3-5 rep max is a completely different animal. This creates a neurologic demand that is simply impossible to achieve on a bicycle. Theoretically, this high-threshold motor unit development can then be utilized while riding during situations requiring explosive bursts of speed. I discuss this concept more fully here and here.
Getting Functional
The idea behind doing "functional exercises" is that the movement pattern(s) should be as close as possible to the activity you're training for. Strive to replicate "athletic" movement patterns like the lunge, for instance, rather than body builder-esque isolation movements like the leg extension. My point is that an exercise like the leg extension or curl does not resemble anything we do in "real life". Since we are talking about the weight room here then the weight training movement should fulfill this criteria. Aspects of the exercise to be considered are speed, joint angle(s), uni versus bilateral movements (i.e. one leg squat or two) and complex versus isolation movements.
For the speed of movement aspect, it's hard to move heavy weights at sport specific speeds. This is simple physics. A heavy load is going to be lifted more slowly compared to the speed of most sporting activities. The key is to attempt to move the weight fast. This develops the circuitry for explosive movement when loads are less. That said, sports with slower impulses like speed skating, cycling and rowing have contraction speeds more easily matched in the weight room. This is nice but not altogether crucial. In fact, when it comes to getting stronger, and that's what this is all about, load should supersede speed when a choice is to be made. In other words, go heavy. The complexities of, say, sprinting, are best attended to doing the actual sport. The creative coach may consider combining these two concepts, using a heavy weight exercise to "turn things on" and follow this with a sport-specific activity to refine the neurologic pattern. Hmmm, the gym could start looking interesting…
Joint angle is definitely another aspect to consider. It is well known in sport science that strength is range of motion (ROM) specific. You must weight train through the ROM at which you hope to perform. Little half squats aren't going to cut it. You will be relatively weak in the range that you avoid. And don't forget that in a complex lift like the squat both hip angle and knee angle need to be attended to. Athletes preferring to use machines, for whatever reason, need to look at the differences in the fixed angles created by machines from different manufacturers.
The Sound of One-Leg Training
Most coaches today advocate single-leg movements for athletes training for sport. The reason is simple. Most sporting activities involve single, alternate leg patterns of propulsion. Rowing is one exception. So, whenever possible, it makes sense to train each leg separately. The one caveat here is that electromyographic studies of motor unit recruitment have demonstrated increased activity in the prime movers when doing bilateral movements. In the squat, for example, the quads, hams and glutes are going to get higher levels of activation with the heavier loads of the two-legged squat. More load equals more recruitment and more stability equals less distraction trying to stay upright. In other words, the unilateral version is going to recruit more stabilizing muscles, perhaps, but at the expense of the activation of the prime movers. Bottom line here is that you should probably do both.
So, to answer Matthew's question more directly, a lunge is harder than a single leg press on a machine due to the need to stabilize the load. This requirement comes at the expense of the ultimate stimulation of the prime movers. Does this matter? Depends. Is not the lunge a "more functional" exercise? The short answer is, "yes". One could argue that, from an injury standpoint, the lunge is safer because the load is lighter. Add this to it's "athletic" quality and you might want to stop right there. But, injury potential aside, if you want to maximize strength gains, you need to go heavy and you can go heavier using other exercises.
If the answer here then is to do something heavy AND something athletic, targeting similar movement patterns and muscles, deciding the order of business in the gym is worth considering. Most coaches advocate doing the most neurologically taxing exercise first. Tasks that fall into this category include heavy stuff, explosive stuff and complex stuff. It gets complicated when using an exercise like a heavy leg press, however. Now, you can use a massive load here so it is technically "heavy" but not very complex. So, if you wanted to do some lunges in the same workout, a more complex but lighter exercise, which should you do first? I think there are worthy arguments for doing either first. I'm not sure what the right answer is. My tendency would be to do them concomitantly, alternating the exercises set by set. Probably worth experimenting on your own.
The circus is in town
No discussion of "functional" training would be complete without a brief mention of Swiss Balls and their ilk. I've ranted about this before here (check out the vid at the bottom) but I need to address it one more time. During the Olympics I watched several videos of athletes preparing for the Games. I was relieved to see the skiers and speed skaters squatting under massive loads. Plenty of plyometric exercises were in the house. Good. But I was incredulous at the stupid circus tricks being performed on stability balls. Oh yeah, seeing Lyndsey Vonn's sweet ass balancing in a tuck on top of a ball was entertaining enough but I failed to see the point. Yes, it's hard but that does not necessarily make it time well spent. Let's face it, the surface she is skiing on is freaking hard as concrete. It is not unstable. I think she develops more than enough proprioception and accessory muscle conditioning actually skiing. And she does plenty of that. Standing still on an inflatable ball bears no resemblance to anything related to skiing, or any other sport for that matter. Leave the tricks to the Cirque de Soleil clowns. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. - Brian