7 Obstacles that stand in the way of optimizing Control Drills

Introduction

What I learnt in the 1980s from physical therapy was there was an opportunity to ensure the small muscle groups critical in controlling joint function were given adequate focus in training. The physical therapists were championing this focus in a clinical setting and for the most part reactively – after injuries had occurred. I took this concept out of the clinic and integrated it into everyday strength training.

And as much as it’s hard for the newer entrants to imagine, these types of exercises, and the concept, simply did not exist in the strength training world at that time. Yes, everyone ‘knows’ about it now, and everyone ‘does’ some form of it now (note the inverted commas) – but it was not always that way.

So, what is the purpose of control and stability? Why did I bring this concept into the realm of mainstream strength training? And why do I make such a big deal about it?

In 1998 I said this about the role of control exercises:

One of the roles of a control exercise is to correct imbalances. The primary role, if it’s prevention as opposed to rehabilitation, the primary role of inserting a control drill is to ensure that the joint is being controlled in execution of a more complex movement. That’s the prevention role. The role … described is then the rehabilitation role. [1]

A secondary role of control drills is to activate the muscles:

… control drills are … aimed … to switch the muscles on.  They can be sequenced in such a way or provided with such a volume that they’re causing fatigue in themselves, but the primary goal of the control drill is to switch the muscle on… they’re there for selective recruitment of muscles… The control drills can be used in a number of ways. You can use them prior to each workout, as I do, to switch the muscles on, or you can use them as a workout in themselves, in particular where an athlete really lacks in control.[2]

These purposes of control drills are well summarized here:

They can be performed in higher volume in rehab/muscle balance situations, and in lower volume for maintenance of muscle balance and to ‘switch’ the muscles on. [3]

One of the keys to success as a coach and I’m sure in any high-performance endeavour is the willingness to learn and adopt new things when you see something that can better serve those you serve.

…we should not get attached to the way we do things today. If we find a better way tomorrow, we should feel no attachment to the limitations of our current way and be willing to replace any aspect of our thoughts or actions with more effective thoughts or actions.

If we become overly attached to the way we are, think and behave, we may struggle to let any aspect go and replace with a more effective option.  The key here is not to allow oneself to stereotype or perceive oneself as a person who thinks or acts in a particular way – rather, a person who thinks or acts in the way that produces the best results. [4]

Control drills have so much to offer. Yet there are a few major obstacles that stand between you and fulfilling their potential. These include but are not limited to:

1. They are a qualitative exercise
2. Delayed gratification
3. The industry guru’s reactive theories and methods
4. The industry default to loading
5. The ‘functional training’ myths
6. Conformity
7. Success has many fathers

 

1. They are a qualitative exercise

Over a quarter of a century ago I described Control drills as having a ‘qualitative focus’.[5]

To summarize this concept, the completion of an exercise set can be divided into three key components: how the exercise is done (technique), the number of repetitions completed, and the load used.  The first component can be described as qualitative and the latter two as quantitative.

This theory considers the implication of a low technique conformity. In other words what is the impact on the training effect in any given exercise when less than ideal technique is used.

The theory proposes that the training effect from an exercise where the training effect is more dependent on the technique will suffer more when that exercise is subject to low technique conformity.

Conversely, in an exercise where the training effect is less dependent on the technique and equally or more so dependent on quantitative variables – such as how many reps were completed, and what load was involved – the training effect is less compromised, relatively speaking.

Therefore, if you accept that control exercises are ‘qualitative’, you may accept that there are very limited training effects when the exercise technique is compromised.

To be blunt odds are if you have been doing what you think are control exercises, you are unlikely to have been receiving any of the benefits I proposed when I introduced this concept.

Because ‘cheating’ in terms of technique is accepted within the four walls of strength training facilities.

The limitations of cheat movements include:

• They don’t develop the strength through the full range of movement
• They don’t develop optimal joint and muscle interaction for athletes in some cases.
• They can be used unnecessarily when mental discipline is lacking, or the desire for instant gratification wins over discipline and delayed gratification.
• They give you the temptation to go to the cheat movement when you could have pushed on another rep or two without starting the cheat movements.
• They can give false impressions of ability and program effectiveness.
• They can result in more cheating rather than greater strength, as when the load is increased the progression can be in the degree of cheating, rather than an increase adaptation and strength expression.
• They are difficult to monitor in degrees of cheating, which as explained above, can mean this variable is moving in addition to the progression in load.
• They may have greater injury potential than a conventional lift. [6]

 

2. Delayed gratification

The reduction in external load due to the reduction in speed of movement in the exercises has the potential to negatively impact the egos of some. For too many, how much weight they appear to be displacing is more important than the training effect.

There is a real chance you will not embrace the variable of technical limit combined with Speed of Movement to select your load. Instead, you may be more guided by your ego, failing to appreciate the time and place to delay gratification.

If you do not have the ability to delay gratification, I suggest you will never fulfill your potential.

This is the way the game is played. Most people go the gym and create problems. They don’t know it, but they’re creating problems. Most programs – including those being promoted as “guru” programs – are creating problems. It’s a simple tradeoff between instant gratification and delayed long-term results. Sure, you might get a pump today, but in three years’ time you’re having surgery, or you can’t train for 12 months. How does it feel to put in those 5000 hours and find out you’ve only created an injury? [7]

 

3. The industry guru’s reactive theories and methods

Odds you are you going to be waylaid by the guru’s reacting to the disruption that resulted from my introduction of the concepts of muscle balance and muscle control from the early 1990s onwards.

After I release new concepts that disrupt the training world, the contemporary gurus have a choice to make. They could say, ‘Hey, I missed this, but that’s a great idea and I’m going to get behind it’. Or they could take action to appear as if they were all over it, typically under the pre-text ‘Hey, I didn’t miss this, you just haven’t caught up with my alternative theory’.

Here’s a few examples.

After I started teaching the important of muscle balance in program design in North America from the late 1980s onwards, including statements such as:

Balance:  all things being equal, and independent of any specificity demands, the selection of exercises should show balance throughout the body.  For example, for every upper body exercise there would be a lower body exercise.  For every upper body pushing movement, there would be an upper body pulling movement. For every vertical pushing movement there would be a vertical pulling movement.  For every hip dominant exercise there would be a quad dominant exercise.  And so on. [8]

Most programs I see lack balance.  They focus too much on one exercise or muscle group at the expense of others.  Or they may even have totally neglected a muscle group. [9]     

After I started training athletes in North America in the late 1980s and this teaching included that chin ups do not balance out bench press, I later wrote:

There is this misdirected belief that a chin up or similar (vertical pulling) is the same as horizontal pulling and work equally to provide the push-pull ratio with benching. What a load of trash! [10]

And after I began teaching my control drills concept, the external DB rotation started appearing more regularly.

Here are a few ‘challenges’ with this:

• It was only one exercise for one joint.
• It was almost always only one variation of all the options available.
• I suggest it was selected because of it provided a photogenic picture.
• It was done last in the workout.
• It was depicted with and encouraged to use loading that essentially denied it falling within my definition of a control drill.

But what about you? There is an incredibly high probability – and I mean incredibly high – that you got sucked into to a knee-jerk reaction theory rushed to market will little care for efficacy to save face, that you have paid the price for your gullibility.  But hey, that’s marketing for you. And who cares about the long-term implications for the consumer as long as the guru stays on their perch?

 

4. The industry default to loading

I describe the 1990s as the decade during which strength training came of age, the decade during which it became the most popular and trending physical quality.

Having lived, trained, worked and observed through prior decades when strength training was unpopular and distrusted, I sensed an incredible liberation in the ‘profession’. One of the by-products of this was the promotion of external load. By the end of the 1990s you were not really doing it right if you were not going heavy on compound movements. Even those who sought to be ‘leaders and teachers’ in the functional training movement post 2000 were part of the 1990s trend towards load. The fact that I introduced a completely different attitude at this peak should give you some insights into the push-back I received by those whose values I threatened.

Now the greatest set of exercises at risk from this industry default to loading are the selective recruitment that control drills are based on.

One of the most common beliefs is that the more you lift in the gym, the better athlete you’re going to be, and I do not support that. I believe loading is overrated. Now, that doesn’t mean that it’s bad to be stronger. That means what I’m saying is if strength, out of context with all the other factors of sport – sport technique, sport tactics, speed, and other physical qualities (speed, strength, endurance) – if strength is out of context, it doesn’t make them a better athlete. And secondly, if it’s loading that results in them compromising the selective recruitment or any of the other two factors, then it doesn’t serve them either. [11] [12]

Introducing bodyweight exercises into conventional strength training programs as I did in my published works in the late 1990s was audacious, but I got away with it, mainly in part because the exercises I introduced combined with the speeds of movement and focus on technique provided a level of muscle soreness in the short term and enhanced muscle size and strength in the medium term, not to mention the reduced injury incidence over the long term.

This acceptance of bodyweight exercises was further enhanced in the early days of the post 2000 ‘functional training movement’, where certain authors copied my exercises and methods sans referencing.

But it didn’t take long before the spectre of loading crept in. Here a few examples of this:

• The supine single or double leg hip thigh extension with bodyweight was not suffice – along came the ‘hip thrust’ – where you could meet the default of loading. Don’t worry about the intended training effects of the original exercise, or the potential for collateral damage from the barbell version – it must be such a relief to be able to displace higher loading!
• The external DB rotation lying on the side with little to no external load – was not suffice. Not only should you ditch the isolated nature of this exercise and instead plant yourself with one foot on a bench and the other on the ground and support yourself with your free arm braced to maximize load.

 

5. The ‘functional training’ myths

I began sharing the control concepts and exercises in the late 1990s, before the advent of the ‘functional training movement’.  What was once relatively wise words about the need for ‘functional strength’ became commercialized post 2000 into ‘rules’ about exercise that shaped the values, habits and exercise choices of the masses.

Note there is a significant different between ‘functional strength’ and a predetermined assumption that any pre-determined exercise is ‘functional’. Which is one of my larger concerns about this ‘movement’.

These ‘functional training exercise rules’ (I call them myths) steered many away from utilizing excises like primary control drills – because they ‘broke the rules’.  This was and continues to be a loss for many.

Some of these rules (again, myths) that discouraged more discerning exercise selection included that you can only do exercise that:

• Are closed chain i.e. You are standing on your feet
• Are ‘compound’ i.e. multi-joint
• Involve balance
• Involve multiple planes of movement

Put simply this shopping list rules out most of the exercises I would recommend in the primary control drills list.  I saw this resistance coming when I said back in 1998:

And these are open chain exercises. Currently subject to debate as to whether control drills are best done in a closed chain environment. That’s the next trend. Closed chain control exercise, which a slow speed squat is anyway. [13]

And this is another obstacle for the end user – who do you listen to? What exercises do you do?

I suggest this is a case where ‘the trend is not your friend’.

 

6. Conformity

Taking into account the above possibilities and combining this with humans innate desire to conform provides another obstacle.  After all, who feels comfortable going into a commercial gym and doing something that is so far removed from and at odds with what everyone else is doing? It takes a special person to be seen to be non-conforming.

So over time athletes have to make a choice – they keep doing what may not be serving them optionally or they find a better way.  Not all athletes want to take the better way. It requires courage and resistance to the forces of conformity and that is not the path for everyone. [14]

Keep in mind I’m not a popularist. I reach conclusions based on the efficacy of the method, not the conformity.

I train to win on the podium, not to gain friendship, respect, and allegiance or show conformity. I understand that my values may be different in this regard. [15]

I can only encourage you to think for yourself in the face of conformity pressure.

Resist the temptation in program design to conform to mainstream paradigms simply for the sake of conforming, no matter how dogmatically they are presented, or how much you may be ridiculed or ostracized for trusting your intuition over conformity. Make our own minds up based on a combination of respect for your intuition, the athlete/client’s intuition, the results, and in respect of the body of knowledge available. [16]

 

7. Success has many fathers

When I began sharing my control theories and exercises in the late 1990s the only place you could learn about them was myself, as the source.   I expected and predicted the impending popularity of the theory and exercises:

These methods are so effective, they are sure to become mainstream.

Learning them ahead of the crowd is not just about being first…[17]

What I did not expect and predict was the way this unique concept would be treated by my ‘colleagues’.

There is a great saying about success.

Success has many fathers; failure is an orphan.[18]

As the years passed post the release of this concept, those who held or sought ‘guru’ status had a choice to make. They could cite the origin and direct you back to the source or seek to take credit and direct the interest to themselves.

I can’t say how many chose each path, but I can tell you there has been enough of those who chose the latter to muddy the water.

So, what’s that got to do with you, the end user?  You are cut off from the source, the history and original intent.  This has been the strategy of colonizers – to cut off the connection of the indigenous people from their culture, ceremonies, traditions, dress, foods, way of living and spirituality.

For a long time, the masses may have also said they see no problems with this. But at some stage more recognize the loss of indigenous wisdom is not only damaging to the effected tribe, it is damaging to society, as we all lose the lessons and wisdoms learnt by indigenous groups over long periods of time.

I say the same from the strength training world. In this case, the history of why control was introduced and integrated into strength training is being lost, as is the critical intent of the theory and method.

This Control Drills book is an attempt to claw this back; however, it would be foolish to suggest that this effort can compensate for the wholescale damage done when those who know the source choose to ignore the source and publish their diluted imitation for personal gain.

This book is giving you, the consumer, the chance to go to the source. To those for whom accuracy matters, I believe this is worthwhile.

 

Conclusion

There is so much upside to control exercises being done in manner they were introduced for. Increases in joint control, muscle balance, reduction in injury, enhanced hypertrophy and strength – just to name a few.

However not many people see these benefits because even when they stumble upon the concept of control, they are typically lured by a guru reaction theory to remain relevant and led down the proverbial garden path.

What they will get is a warm feeling from being seen to be doing the dominant trend, what all those around them are doing.

If you have been exposed to the contents of this book you now have the opportunity to choose a different path to the masses – if you want.

These are the typical challenges of any person on a journey, especially in the early days of a new frontier.

 

Note – this article is an abridged extract from the book ‘Control Drills‘ from the  box set ‘Get Buffed! Specialization Series’ of books.

References

[1] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization (DVD)

[2] King, I., 2000, How to Teach Strength Training Exercises, King Sports International, Brisbane, Aust. (DVD)

[3] King, I., 2002, Ian King’s Guide to Control Drills (Get Buffed! ™ Series), King Sports International, Brisbane, Aust. (DVD)

[4] King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach, Ch. 18 – Right and wrong

[5] King, I., 2002, Get Buffed! II (book), p. 137

[6] King, I., 2003, Heavy Metal Q&A, t-mag.com, May 2003

[7] King, I., 2000, in Shugart, C., Meet the Press – Coach of coaches: An interview with Ian King, 29 Dec 2000, t-mag.com

[8] King, I., 1998, How to write strength training programs (Book)

[9] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™ (Book), p. 77

[10] King, I., 1999, Heavy Metal No. 6, t-mag.com

[11] King, I., 2015, The Stop Injuries in Strength Training Video Series, Pt 8 of 10: The importance of technique in strength training

[12] King, I., 2018, Zero Tolerance to Injuries Series, Pt 8 of 10: The importance of technique in strength training

[13] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization (DVD)

[14] King, I., 2020, This is the difference we make, Off the Record #86, 17 Mar 2020

[15] King, I., 2019, Respect, Off the Record #34, 10 Apr 2019

[16] King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach, Ch. 4 – Training program design

[17] King, I., 2002, Ian King’s Guide to Control Drills (DVD)

[18] https://www.quora.com/Who-said-Success-has-many-fathers-but-failure-is-an-orphan