Ground Up Strength

First of all, learning the lifts is about motor learning. How much do we know about that? Well it depends on what you mean by "know". We know a lot more than most trainers think we do and the number one area missing in the education of most trainers and coaches are motor learning and skill acquisition. Knowing biomechanics and kinesiology is not necessarily the same as an in-depth understanding of the learning process. In fact, some of the current hype around "assessment" and "corrective exercise" could well be replaced by some hype for the motor learning process.

However, when people do get into this area of performance, they tend to think that there is a best way to do everything and that this is a straight forward process.

While there is a lot of knowledge about motor learning and skill acquisition being accumulated that knowledge does not really take the form of an athlete's owner's manual. There is theory, there is experiment and there is observation. Much is still left to the interpretation and experience of the individual trainer. As is so often the case, there is little middle ground.

Another part of the problem is that the high complexity of learning the Olympic lifts compared to the slower lifts like deadlift, squat, etc. make it seem like the slower lifts are a "no brainer". On the other hand there are those who feel a bunch of movement screens and assessments are necessary before one can even touch a barbell and the trainee is just as likely to be spending most of his time feeling like he's in a physical therapy office as in a gym.

The swimming here is the same as programming. To put that simply, programming means picking a scheme of progression for the lift as part of a larger program. So unlike the kid gloves crowd who won't even let the trainee look at the water the "throw em in the pond" crowd has the trainee begin programming the lift and progressing on it at the same time he or she is learning it.

Conversely, and I do mean conversely, the kid gloves crowd may as well be giving the trainee a relaxing massage and treating them to expensive champagne and caviar. Some people in this crowd seem almost to have come to the conclusion that if something is "hard" we might break in half. I'm not kidding. Mike Boyle wrote a complicated several week process just to get a trainee up to the point of doing an ab wheel rollout. What does that say about deadlifts? I never thought I'd be saying this but things are getting just a tad bit wimpy.

One might think, based on these two extremes, that the right way is somewhere in the middle. Well not necessarily. It is a common fallacy to assume that if two extreme viewpoints exist then the the proper path is right smack in the middle of the two. This is not always true and one of the viewpoints, even though extreme compared to the other, might be more on the money. Well, in this case I don't think either viewpoint is the way to go and not everybody learns the same. Also, most people will be teaching themselves the lifts and exercises so the most flexible method, that the trainee can use to grow with, should be the best.

Assuming that the average person can learn the lifts without going through an intensive clinic, what are the training facets that are at work in deciding if one should program the lifts right off the bat or if you should go with, as we call it at GUS, a "honeymoon period"? Well there are many many things to consider but the two main questions at work here are the affects of fatigue and performance on learning.

Problem is it's a circular consideration. Does fatigue affect learning? Not as such. You can teach a trainee a skill, have them practice for a while and see them improve. Now, the trainee practices for a while longer and gets tired. He rests. He goes back to practice and returns to pre-fatigue skill levels. Okay, so the fact that fatigue is introduced, at least acutely, does not "undo" the learning or damage a trainees ability to learn in itself.

Should we take that as an excuse to throw a trainee under the bus and aggressively program a lift he or she has just begun to perform? Aggressive programming means that fatigue will be a part of the picture on a chronic basis. Fatigue doesn't affect learning. But it affects performance. Performance affects learning. See the circularity here? If we practice a new lift in a consistently fatigued state, our performance of the lift is affected and thus our learning. If 50 percent or more of one's exposure to a lift is performed under fatigue, can that NOT influence the quality of the learning?

And does it matter? Do we care about the influence of fatigue or do we simply care whether the trainee learns the lift very well and hones it in as well as humanly possible? It depends on how much of a hurry we are in. Trainers get paid to produce results. In the case of strength training that is weight on the bar. Fastest possible progression as early as possible is the name of the game. There are two assumptions at work here:

1. The fastest possible progression early on results in a stronger trainee later on.

2. There is no way to progress that does not involve aggressive loading.

Both assumptions are dead wrong. There is nothing to lose, in the long run, by taking the time to learn the lifts carefully and spending the time to hone the lifts in, enabling repeated exposure to work its mojo. Two articles at GUS, written back in July '09, explore this. Teaching versus Learning the Lifts introduces the concepts, in a plain English sort of way, and The Honeymoon Period explains the process of learning the lifts that an individual who is self-trained can use.

Strength training is not about throwing around weights and just diving in head first without a bit of exposure and learning. But neither is strength training therapy. At the end of the day the purpose of training for strength is to increase force development. To get stronger.

In weightlifting parlance, the hook grip is a grip in which the thumb wraps around the bar first and the first two or three fingers hook the thumb. There is also a reverse hook grip in which the thumb is placed over the first few fingers.

The misconceptions concerning the hook grip are many yet it seems even those trainees who don't want to use it because of the pain it causes still accept its superiority. Where is the data? Why is it considered superior? Is it really better than the mixed grip (alternated over/under grip)?

Joe Weir and I have spent a long time on this question. We've researched, discussed, and analyzed. We've sweated. We've toiled. We've done math! And we've come to some conclusions: Hook Grip versus Alternated Grip for Deadlifts.

Among the claims concerning raw milk and pasteurized milk are:

1. RAW MILK IS A “MAGIC FOOD FOR CHILDREN”
2. Raw milk kills pathogens
3. Pasteurization destroys the enzymes in milk
4. Pasteurization causes lactose intolerance
5. Raw milk is a probiotic food
6. Pasteurization destroys milk proteins
7. Pasteurization destroys vitamins and minerals in milk
8. Raw milk produced on large commercial dairies is unsafe
9. "Certified" raw milk is safe
10. If you buy raw milk you get to participate in a space station time share

You can read much more about this in Raw Milk Dangers and False claims.

While we are on the subject of milk, a long held myth is that consuming milk causes the production of excess mucus. Therefore, you should not drink milk if you have a cold, or if you are prone to sinus infections, or upper respiratory infections. Also, milk is said to exacerbate asthma symptoms and bring on attacks for some asthmatics. This myth comes from way back and is part of Ayurvedic beliefs which also hold that there are certain "mucus forming foods" such as animal products, grains, and legumes:

Milk Consumption and Excess Mucus