Ian King

Does exercise accuracy matter?

/by

Introduction

When speaking to physical trainers, therapists and other aligned professionals as I travel on the quest to answer the question ‘What is the best way to train?’, I appreciate learning from them. What they think, what they say, and what they do with athletes and clients.

This journey has involved the privilege of travelling the world for many decades seeing these training trends firsthand.  When asked what the most common exercise I see being done from my innovation, it is, without question, the single-leg stiff-legged deadlift.  The only problem is that I almost never see it being done in the way I intended. It would be difficult to walk into any gym in the world now and not see someone performing an imitation of a small oil rig.

Over time I also hear the words used to describe the exercise and the interpretation of when and how to use it varies more and more.

For example, I was recently in a seminar when one of the participants  – a highly qualified and experienced practitioner, albeit a post-2000 entrant to their profession – repetitively referred to my exercise innovation of some forty years ago as a ‘single leg RDL’. And spoke about their application of it to rehab a client’s chronic hamstring injury. With limited success.

It may have been that little bit of German heritage in myself, but my excellence-at-risk meter tends to rise towards the red line when I see and hear these things that for me are the opposite of exercise accuracy. But perhaps that is my problem. Perhaps exercise accuracy doesn’t matter?

When I speak about exercise accuracy, I refer to the origin, name, execution, the application.  I will continue on with the theme of the exercise I called the single leg stiff leg deadlift.

The origin

In this section, I share my observations of the evolution of the stiff-legged deadlift.

The stiff-legged deadlift

First, there was the stiff-legged deadlift.  It was an exercise done for the most part by competitive lifter – Olympic and power – as a supplementary exercise to pulls and deadlifts.

I described this exercise many years ago in the following way:

MG Stiff Legged Deadlift:  Take a medium grip (about shoulder width) and commence in a standing position.  Lower the bar down by bending at the hips, not at the knees.  In the start, the knees should be slightly bent and remain exactly at joint angle during the lift. [1]

It was a two-legged (bi-lateral) loaded exercise using the barbell.

You will find this exercise championed in books that shaped training through the lat half a century including but not limited to:

The single-leg stiff-leg deadlift

During the early 1980s, I concluded that the dominant approach to strength training was creating muscle imbalances because of the bias in programs towards exercises such as the bench press and the squat.  I didn’t want that collateral damage for the athletes I trained, and I set about developing a categorization of exercises to avoid such imbalance in program design. This led to the concept of ‘Lines of Movement’, where I introduced terms and definitions to place every strength exercise into an exercise category.

 The following shows a breakdown of the body into major muscle groups/lines of movement, and then into examples of exercises. It is what I call ‘the family trees of exercise’. Use this to assess balance in your exercise selection.  

To help you understand how to divide and balance out your training, Ian came up with a list of major muscle groups that reflects their function:[3]

Horizontal pulling (row)
Horizontal pushing (bench press)
Vertical pulling (chin-up)
Vertical pushing (shoulder press)
Hip dominant (deadlifts)
Quad dominant (squats)

So, when I was writing a program, I increased the balance of the program by ensuring balance in the Lines of Movement.

When developing the term ‘hip dominance’ and defining what constitutes a hip dominant exercise, I realized that there were too few exercises in this category and that I needed to match the number, joint involvement and loading potential of exercises in the ‘Quad Dominant’ category.

I leaned on the traditional double leg barbell stiff-legged deadlift to create a single-leg, nil, or low-loaded variation option.

During the 1980s I refined the movement however, as with all my innovations, I trialled and tested it for a decade before extensively publishing it commencing from the late 1990s.

You can see the original exercise in the image below, taken from the How to Teach Strength Training Exercies Video Series (2000).

The ‘Romanian Deadlift’ (RDL)

The “Romanian Deadlift’ appeared in the US in the early 1990s. Initially, this exercise had no known name, or at least not one that the person I learnt it from gave it.  Dragomir Cioroslan, (a former Romanian national weightlifting coach who went on to work with the US Weightlifting team) and his protegee’s were doing a series of demonstrations and seminars during the early 1990s when many, including myself, were intrigued by a unique exercise that they were using as a supplementary exercise – somewhat of a cross between a deadlift and a stiff-legged deadlift.

I had been analyzing the physiques of Dragomir’s athletes for a few days before I got to see them train, and I was puzzled by their hamstring development. There were other shape differences between the and other weightlifters of that era, but that was the one that I linked to this exercise. So, before I got to see them lift, they had my attention.

I began integrating the ‘Romanian Deadlift’ into my training programs and in the absence of a name I called it the Romanian Deadlift, in respect of the origin. I have since noted others came to this same name conclusion. In all publications since that time, I have continued to use that name for this exercise.

The name

By the time I learnt of the loaded bilateral single-joint exercise we called the Romanian Deadlift, I was already well advanced in using the exercise variation I had developed and named the single-leg stiff-legged deadlift.

I began integrating the ‘Romanian Deadlift’ into my training straight away, however, it was not as a substitute or synonym for what I had developed but rather as an additional tool in the toolbox. In my mind they were two different exercises.

Not only was one unilateral and the other bilateral, but also because they were conducted with strikingly different techniques and loading potential.

When I see or hear the term ‘RDL’ to refer to the single-legged deadlift as I had innovated, I question their understanding of that person as to the execution and intent of each exercise.

For me, the only thing they have in common is that they are both relatively isolated posterior chain exercises i.e., they only involve the hip, rather than the knee and the hip.

The execution

To commence the discussion of the difference in execution between the single leg stiff legged deadlift and the Romanian Deadlift, I share the descriptions of each I provided in the late 1990s.

Romanian Deadlift

In plainer terms this is a flat back version of the stiff-legged deadlift.  With the bar on your back, take a shoulder-width stance and slightly bend the knees.  The knee angle is now not to change during the lift.  Flex or lower forward from the waist, keeping your chest up and hip/spine flat i.e. aligned.  Only flex forward as far as you can PRIOR to any rounding of the spine or posterior rotation of the hip.  For most, this will not be very far!

You can also accentuate the hamstring involvement by pushing the bum back and allowing your weight to drift to your heels during the lowering.     During the lift, squeeze the gluts.  This increases the hamstring involvement, which is the aim.[4]

Single Leg standing Stiff Legged Deadlift

Let the fun begin!  Stand on one leg – have the other foot off the ground, but kept roughly parallel with the leg doing the supporting.  Bend the knee slightly, but that knee angle should not change during the exercise (get a partner to watch for this, as it will be tempting to do so!).  Now bend at the waist, allowing the back to round and reach slowly towards the floor.  If your range allows, touch the floor with the fingertips and return to the starting position.  Use a speed of 3 seconds down, 1 sec pause at the ends, and 3 seconds up.

You may struggle with balance, but persist – you will be developing the muscles in the sole of the foot!  The first time you do this you may find you are touching down with the non-supporting foot regularly to avoid falling over.  This is ok, but in later workouts, try to minimize this.  When you have mastered this exercise, and touching of the ground by the non-supporting leg means terminate the set – this is your challenge.

Don’t be surprised if you can only do 5 reps on day 1!  Look to increase the reps from workout to workout.  Hold light DB’s in your hand ONLY when you get to 10 reps at the speed indicated.  No warmup set necessary.   Remember the weak side rule. [5]

Unfortunately for the world’s interpretation of how to execute the single leg stiff legged deadlift, only a few years after I began more openly sharing the exercise in publications, it appeared unreferenced in a prominent magazine, performed in a way that reflected the ‘author’s’ lack of understanding (and perhaps also the male models lack of flexibility, balance and single leg strength – to be able to do the exercise!). Learn more about that here.

To be clear, consider the following comparison:

Variables SL Stiff Legged DL Romanian Deadlift Similar Different
Hip dominant exercise

*
Isolated hamstring Less so More so (1)

*
Number of limbs One (unilateral) Two (bilateral)

*
Loading on feet Central Rear

*
Spine shape Rounded Flat

*
Chest shape Collapsed Up

*
Loading potential Lower Higher

*
  • When done correctly as per the manner originally intended.

Between the descriptions provided and the table above, it may be clearer why I do not see the words ‘RDL’ relevant to the single-leg stiff-legged deadlift. There are far more differences than similarities.

The application

The original rounded-back stiff-legged barbell deadlift is an excellent exercise for strengthening spinal segment strength in addition to hamstrings. However, the political correctness trend in exercise has veered away from exercises and variations that include a rounded spine. That’s unfortunate for athletes who experience loading and/or impact in a less-than-neutral spine shape.

The application of the exercise I innovated, the single-leg stiff-legged deadlift, is not as clear-cut as many assume. In theory, being a unilateral, single-joint exercise, it would have a broad application earlier in the training career, year and return from injury/surgery.

However due to the range involved, the increased loading on the hamstring due to the more bloated nature of the exercise, the increased demand on balance, and the fixed load of the body, this exercise needs to be reviewed and reflected on prior to being included in a training program.

Additional points to consider include:

  • When conducted in an optimal manner (as per it was developed) – with the non-working leg remaining still and parallel to the working leg – the range may be limited by the hamstring flexibility (this was not a problem for me during the developmental decade, because of the premium I placed on flexibility training).
  • If the athlete/client lacks the balance and or range to execute the movement tin the intended manner, you can choose between developing these qualities or default to the influence of allowing the back leg to raise.
  • If you go with the softer option, you are reducing the work (including balance) in general due to counterbalancing of the back leg, and reducing the workload and isolation on the hamstring by allowing the pelvis hemispheres to diverge.
  • Therefore, a decision needs to be made regarding progression – to work on improving range, repetitions, and or load. Generally speaking, I recommend working from the former to the latter.

The Romanian Deadlift (RDL) provides greater loading potential than the single leg stiff legged deadlift version, however, the following are important points:

  • The RDL should not be considered as an equal and opposite of a squat, as the relative loading potential of this exercise compared to the squat is less.
  • The RDL as a rounded back exercise should not negate the inclusion of a rounded back variation in athletes who may be exposed to loads in their sport where the spine is less than in neutral (rounded).
  • If the pivot at the hip joint is not maintained as the exclusive pivot point, the relative load/work/isolation on the hamstrings is reduced.
  • Therefore, considering the progressively reducing nature of athlete flexibility, you may not be working through the range you initially expected or anticipated.

Now to touch briefly on a key point in the application. There has been a long-retained belief, at first in the physical therapy disciplines and now also in the physical training disciplines, that isolated hamstring strength training is the key to rehabilitating or preventing hamstring strains.

Many decades ago, I reached an alternative conclusion. It’s not the aim of this article to go deep on this subject, however, I feel it may be remiss of me to not touch upon it.

Keep in mind my suggestion that if you fail to identify the cause of the injury (and I suggest weak hamstrings are not the cause in the overwhelming majority of cases), then your ‘solution’ may contribute to the problem.

Learning that the single leg stiff legged deadlift – an exercise near and dear to my heart because it is essentially one of my ‘babies’ –  is being used in a ‘hamstring strengthening program’ to rehabilitate athletes with hamstring strains, or prevent hamstring strains, is difficult to hear.  I do not believe the goal will be achieved, and the athlete does not deserve to be a guinea pig for this misguided paradigm.

Conclusion

For almost twenty years now I’ve watched the single-leg stiff-legged deadlift gain global acceptance – in and out of the gym. The only problem was that it was not being done in the intended manner.  More recently I have seen this popularity expand into rehabilitation, and this becomes even more concerning.  And to hear the confusion around the name, such as the use of the term ‘RDL’ in the same exercise name, is a reflection of a lack of understanding o the nuance of the RDL to achieve the hamstring isolation.

Maybe that’s just me being too German-like, seeking precision and excellence in the process.

Maybe exercise accuracy doesn’t matter?

 

References

[1] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! 1 (book), p. 244

[2] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, P. 32

[3] Shugart, Chris, 2001, The Ian King Cheat Sheets, Part 1 – A quick and dirty look at all the cool stuff Ian King has taught us so far, Fri, Aug 24, 2001, T-mag.com

[4] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! I, p. 230-231.

[5] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed! I, p. 210-211.

Ian King

Reflections on the Get Buffed!™ programs journey – origins, reactions and impact

/by

It’s been 21 years (1999) since the first Get Buffed!™ program was released. A lot has happened in that time, and we have a lot to talk about!  You can break this journey down into three periods – the origins, the reactions and the impact.

The program and its unique concept have changed the way the world trains, but it could do more. It has potentially underperformed, and I outline my thoughts about why I say that below.

The origins of the Get Buffed!™ program

The original Get Buffed!™ program was based on a lifetime of training and at the time in 1999, my prior 19 years of professional and experiences developing, testing, refining and reaching conclusion in the quest to optimize athlete performance.

There were many key influences in shaping the Get Buffed!™ program and I sought to credit and reference them where appropriate, an act that has lost relevance apparently post 2000.

Some of my key mentors included the local strongman on the island I grew up in the South Pacific Ocean, my high school teachers, my first ‘boss’ in the industry at the university I commenced at in 1980, my training partners in the weightlifting club I that I trained with during the ensuing decade.

Some of my influences included the few books available at the time, the magazines I was exposed to in the 1980s and 1990, and the strength athletes with the results to show. It was a different era – only those with obvious results would be promoted as role models, unlike the post 2000 era when individuals who lacked such personal success and commitment to their own training were given the platform via the internet to become strength training experts and authors.

The reaction to the Get Buffed!™ program

The world had not seen anything like the Get Buffed!™ program before, and the reaction was predictable – first it was ridiculed, then it was violently opposed, and then it became accepted as if everyone ‘always knew it’. Just as German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer described new ‘truths’ are treated!

The ridicule was directed at many aspects of the program but for the most part the fact that it involved bodyweight exercises. No-one was integrating bodyweight exercises into heavy duty strength training programs and the appetite for the concept was low. The typical response was ‘how could you get big and strong doing just bodyweight?

To overcome this skepticism supporters wrote encouragement such as:

The following article is Part I of a two-part leg training article that’s very different from anything you’ve ever done. How so? Well, for starters, some of the exercises don’t even require you to use any weight beyond that of what you’ve got piled on top of your hip bones and dressed up in a Tommy Hilfiger shirt. Secondly, this workout has a nasty side effect. It hurts. Real bad.

Cast aside your skepticism and try the following workout this week. Part II will follow next week.[1]

Editor’s note: I tried Parts I and II of Ian’s workout this past week. It’s really unique, and I felt that I had blasted my legs. Of course, the most difficult part of the workout was shrugging off years of brainwashing. Doing exercises with little or no weight was a hard pill to swallow, but once I reminded myself that I didn’t care how different or weird the movements looked, I had a great workout. Remember, screw the pack mentality and give this workout a try! [2]

The next phase was violent opposition. It only took a year or so to get here, and it was led by those whose apple carts had been upturned by the concepts built into the program.

The guru that ran NY was incensed when his disciples told how I had suggested at a seminar in about 2000 in NYC that chin ups didn’t balance out bench pressing. This guru’s programs were totally devoid of horizontal pulling (e.g. rows) and this didn’t sit well.  The immediate reactions included a banning of all that Guru’s disciplines from attending my seminars. Seminar attendance in North America was down by 50% as a result. The interim approach was to tell the disciples that if they ordered any of our educational material, when the parcel arrived, they would get arrested. Go figure!?  He had his Lieutenants tell people I was about to be arrested! And the long-term play was the release of a ‘modified’ exercise that would ‘fix’ the problem without changing the exercise selection – so still no need to row…Learn exactly what that exercise was during the upcoming webinar.

New York was not the only push back experience. The Boston Guru had his own approach. Again, incensed at the content of a live seminar because it was very different to what he was doing, he arranged a mid-seminar walkout of his disciples and successfully intimidated the seminar host to never host my seminars again. But it was his long-term play that shocked me – learn about that in the upcoming seminar!

Then the final phase was characterized the trend spotters pumping out material that looked very ‘similar’. When questioned about the origin the typical response was ‘we are just going back to stuff that has always been around.  For example, when teaching bodyweight exercises straight out of the Get Buffed!™ program, book and DVD, under the guise of ‘your body is a barbell’ a presenter in 2003 was asked:

Q. This is so perfect for me…I am very limited in what I could take. You say you steal everything, where did you steal this stuff from?

 A. Um, God [looks up at heavens], I steal from a lot of people. Er, some stuff from Ian King. Um, a lot of stuff from Paul Chek. And just the older stuff, like when you go back and read like early training manuals, this stuff is nothing new, like we didn’t invent it, it’s just that its been forgotten about, so we are going back to get it….[3]

These early imitations were. then followed by the ‘functional training movement’, and I will address this at length in the upcoming webinar.

Suffice to say, it’s been the classic over-reaction I spoke about when I coined the saying:

One of my passions is the study of futurism and human behavior. As such I had developed a saying based upon this study, about how humans’ reaction to new ideas in the short and long term.[4]

It is also appropriate to remind you of the natural human and social reactions – an over-reaction in the short term and an under-reaction in the long term.  When a ‘new’ thing becomes popular, many over-promote it and many over use it. [5]

And there you have the three stages, moved through in a matter of years. It was quick.

It was also really messed up, because those who were at the forefront of wanting to benefit from the acceptance of the concepts introduced in the Get Buffed!™  program didn’t have the connection with and the experience in the training methods, concepts and exercises. It was more about the benefit to them from being the message bringer than a desire to bring the message in its intended format. More insights into this during the upcoming webinar.

The longer term impact of Get Buffed!™ program

We have received unsolicited testimonials from so many about the positive impact of the Get Buffed!™ program, and that have been veery rewarding to know of this positive impact.  However there has been another side to this impact.

In hindsight I realize that the concepts and innovations I shared with the release in 1999 of the Get Buffed!™ program had some longer-term impacts I failed to anticipate.

There is the opportunity to correct these impacts however they may never be fully removed.

To illustrate this point I will take about a few exercises and training concepts. I will discuss the origins of these and other unique exercises during the webinar.

The popularization of the Roman Deadlift, with its flat back, appears to have contributed to the demise of the traditional and more valuable bent knee deadlift. Post 2000, if you ask anyone – from industry professional to end user – to show you what a deadlift was, I found them demonstrating the flat back version.  There are many other factors that have been involved, including the difficulty of teaching/learning the bent knee deadlift, and the injury risks associated with a poorly executed bent knee deadlift. However I believe that light that was shone on the flat-backed version aka the Romanian Deadlift was, tragically, a large contributor to this shift.

As a further side effect of this has been the sending of the round-back good morning to the sin bin, as popular as static stretching in the current paradigm environment. More on that in the webinar!

The single leg stiff legged deadlift was bastardized very quickly after release (more on that in the seminar) and the result has been nothing more than tragic. Because I get to travel the world and visit many training facilities, it’s been hurtful to see the embracing of this misinterpretation of this incredible exercise – which is more like a ballet move than what I had created.  It may be too late to undo this mess, but we can help those committed to learning the intent and receiving the benefits!

The championing of the Bulgarian Squat has led to what I campaigned for so long to avoid and part of the driving force behind the Lines of Movement concept I developed (hip and quad, vertical and horizontal push and pull categorization – the over-training of the quad dominant muscle group. (Yes, that is what I said – the ‘quad dominant muscle group’! Not the ‘knee dominant’ exercises, and that’s a story we might get into in the webinar also!). A great exercise for sure, however when you give more sugar to a diabetic, it doesn’t end well…

The Lines of Movement concept was borne out of my observations of the trends in shape change in leading strength exponents, specifically bodybuilders. Not only have we failed to prevent the two key muscle/joint imbalances I sought to address through this concept, the promotion of unilateral work and the presentation of the concept of exercise classification has led to a tragic side-effect.

Uni-lateral exercise has been around forever, however it was not a focus or feature of western world training until the arrival of the Get Buffed!™ program.  Exercise classification up until the release of the Get Buffed!™ program was limited to muscle groups.

For example, this is my leg day. No split between quad and hip dominant. This is my chest, shoulder, and triceps day. No recognition of planes of movement. The ‘Lines of Movement’ concept changed this.

However, the ongoing search for a better ‘mouse-trap’ by those seeking significance more than seeking to solve an existing problem, has let to new patterns of physical dysfunction that were non-existent in the 1980s, when I developed the exercise categorization of Lines of Movement.  Two new dysfunction epidemics have evolved that I didn’t see coming, leaving the majority with now the ‘Big Four’ musculo-skeletal dysfunctions, and I will speak about them in the webinar.

That’s heartbreaking for me – to think that I introduced an exercise categorization concept to combat the ‘Big Two’ of the 1980s, only to responsible (indirectly) for the ‘Big Four’ decades later.

Conclusion

So there you have it – 21 years since the first Get Buffed!™ program was released and the journey since– the origin, the response and the longer term impact.  Four Get Buffed books (the only four book sequel in this genre I am aware of) and thirteen DVDs later! And more to come…

Join the discussion on the upcoming webinar and training camp where we will take a deep dive into all things Get Buffed!™

 

Webinar Options

21 reflections on the journey – origins, response and impact of the Get Buffed!™ programs!

Celebrating 21 years of Get Buffed!™

Webinar Option 1 – Evening in the Americas, daytime in Asia Pacific

Webinar Option 2 – Evening in Asia Pacific, daytime in Europe

Join the upcoming Get Buffed! Training Camp

 

References

[1] TC Louma, 1999, in the introduction to my workout A in my unique bodyweight based strength and bodybuilding program, a pioneer program at that time, Editor T-mag.com, Sep 17 1999

[2] TC Louma, 1999,, in the conclusion to Workout B of my unique bodyweight based strength and bodybuilding program, a pioneer program at that time…., Editor T-mag.com, Sep 24 1999

[3] Cosgrove, A., 2003, Your body as a barbell – unconventional bodyweight exercises, DVD, 18 Oct 2003, at Charles Staley Bootcamp

[4] King, I., 2010, Barbells & Bullshit (Book), Chapter 3 – Those sayings look familiar?!, p. 13

[5] King, I., 2002, Heavy Metal Q & A, T-mag.com, 30 Oct

Ian King

Nutritional supplements and strength training: Part 1 – The arrival of smoke and mirrors

/by

Any survey or cross reference of articles titled ‘The Top Bodybuilding Supplements you need to be taking’– and there is no shortage of the there article [1] [2] [3]– on what are the top most popular strength training supplements today’ would find the following common them – creatine, BCAA, caffeine or similar stimulants, glutamine, fish oils, and protein powders. The question I have, which may surprise – is this approach optimal?

Now we could debate which are really the top most popular supplements, however just run with this message – why is it that everyone is basically singing from the same song sheet? It is because the masses have got it worked out and you shouldn’t mess with this formula? Or is it more of a case of conforming sheep?

Anyone willing to take a journey down the modern history of supplementation in strength training may reach the same conclusions that many have, including the author of trilogy book series ‘Smoke and Mirrors’ Randy Roach[1] – that the game changed forever in the 1960s.

1940-1950s

In the post was late 1940s environment the story goes that friends of English athlete turned bodybuilder Reg Park would share their milk and cream rations with him, allowing him to consume more protein than the average person.

“In the Golden Age of Classic Physique Building (the 1940s and 50s), the approach to diet was much simpler than today. The CPB Champs simply ate a high protein diet consisting of what they considered to be “nutritious, wholesome foods.” So basically the diet was meat (all kinds), dairy (whether cow-based or goat-based), eggs, fruits, vegetables (in salads or cooked), nuts, and a bit of whole-grain cereals & bread (starchy foods were used sparingly).”[2]

1960s

1960 was considered a seminal year in strength training nutritional supplements. During the late 1950s American pharmaceutical companies such as Ciba began producing anabolic steroids for human use. This changed the landscape in the ‘iron game’.

“At the beginning of the decade, protein was still #1 on the bodyuiblders checklist, but it would soon drop to the #2 position as the sport begian to shift into anabolic over-drive.” [3]

Roach in his book ‘Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors’ talks about how the arrival of anabolic steroids on the strength training scene in the US from 1960 onwards muddied the waters, allowing marketers of equipment and supplements to make all sorts of claims about the effectiveness of their equipment, training protocols or over the counter supplements, whilst the truth was more about the steroids.

Bob Hoffman of York Barbell and Joe Weider of the Muscle and Fitness magazine were two names that have been connected with this 1960s phenomenon where drugs were giving the results yet equipment, training programs and supplements were being advertised as the reason behind the great gains.

Here is an example of 1960s marketing (by Bob Hoffman) that Roach raises questions about the true cause of the improvement:

“…training experiments with simple exercises, with particular emphasis on nutrition, notably the continued regular use of Hi-Proteen an ENERGOL, and more use of our Super Gain Weight Tablet, Liver, Iron, Vitamin B12. I gained at an amazing rate and soon developed noticeable muscles.” [4]

Weider it was suggested stood on both sides of the aisle, decrying the use of drugs in articles but willing to use drug supported athletes to market his supplements and other products.

This drug use quickly spread into other sports. In a November 1962 issue of ‘Iron Man’, editor and owner Peary Rader….

“….spoke out early and pleaded with his readership in an article titled “Don’t Do it Fellows” . He wrote on Dianabol and Nilivar and the fact that they had already spread into the coaching ranks of both high school and college football.” [5]

US chiropractor and strength coach Ken Leistner tells a great story about what Joe Weider said to him when Ken challenged Joe as to why Ken, as a teenager bought and used all the supplements that Joe was marketing and they didn’t get him the results advertised. He said Joe Weider said words to the effect:

“My job was to pull as many boys off the street and into the gym as I could using the advertising that I did. In the time you realized it was bullshit, I already had you hooked into a healthier lifestyle of workout out and eating better.” [6]

From my personal observations during the four decades from the 1980 to the current decade, and from my study of iron game magazines from the 1970s, I suggest that the game developed in the 1960s has continued to date – that is, great gains and great outcomes by performance enhancing drugs have provided the backdrop to benefit claims for a wide range of training methods, equipment and supplements.

In the ideal world, it would be of great value to see the full ‘supplement’ use of any claims about supplementation disclosed before any conclusions are reached. This concern not only relates to typical bodybuilding supplement claims, it also relates to a number of ‘research articles’ that have been published based on elite athletes in sports with high performance enhancing drug use. The results are simply misleading in the absence of controlling the variable of drug use. At least that is the objective nature of science – to control the variables and change and measure the other/s.

The same marketing techniques that were developed and refined over half a century ago, I suggest, still dominate the market. And as a result, the masses have been misled for six decades and continuing.

When I ask anyone in strength training which supplements they are taking, the overwhelming majority will be taking the most dominantly marketed supplements of the times. Do they work? Are they effective? Who knows. That is not the reason they are taking them. They are taking them because that is what everyone has been led to believe, through effective marketing, they ‘need’ to be taking them.

What is that was not the case? What if we stripped back to square one and only added for supplements long use after an appropriate, objective personal trial of them.

As with my approach to training, I am less interested in what can be shown to produce an effect, and more interested in what is the optimal approach.

There are only so many supplements most individuals will consume contemporaneously, whether from a budget limitation or other reasons. I suggest your goal should be to order your supplement intake in a priority based on optimal effectiveness, rather than a blind adoption of the dominant, market driven trends.

Now I understand the human desire make emotional decisions and justify them logically. So if you are drawn to using the same supplement suite as everyone else, I’m confident you can find a ‘reason’ for them.

However for those who are committed to thinking for themselves, are willing to act primarily upon their own personal conclusions, to follow the advice of one of America’s most intelligent men – Buckminster Fuller, who wrote:

“…fifty-three years ago at age thirty-two, jettisoned all that I had ever been taught to believe and proceeded thereafter to reason and act only on the basis of direct personal experience.” [7]

So what were the dominant habits of strength athletes prior to the 1960s when the arrival of anabolics masked any hope of truth in marketing? Up until the 1960s two main supplements dominated. You can see these two in this quote from the Legend, three times Mr. Universe Reg Park.

In an interview with Reg published by Osmo “John” Kiiha in his magazine ‘The Iron Master’ Reg is quoted as saying:

“I liked to eat like a king, but only food that was good for me. I ate prodigious amounts of food during the day, but adhered to a very balanced diet with everything in proper proportions. My favorite food is steak, which I sometimes eat twice a day. I also like salads, orange juice and wine. I have a wine cellar in my home. I also have used protein supplements and take vitamin and mineral tablets.” [8]

Isn’t that interesting.

Conclusion

In summary things changed in the 1960s and stayed the same since. Drug supported physiques are used to market you the supplements that you take, on the belief or inference that the results achieved by the model are the ones you are going to achieve by use of the supplement being marketed. And you believe it.

References

[1] https://www.musclesmokeandmirrors.com

[2] Reg Park’s diet for a classic physique, Classic physique builder, https://classicphysiquebuilder.blogspot.com.au/2009/02/reg-parks-diet-for-classic-physique.html

[3] Roach, R., 2008 Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors, AuthorHouse, p. 381.

[4] Roach, R., 2008 Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors, AuthorHouse, p. 383.

[5] Roach, R., 2008 Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors, AuthorHouse, p. 387.

[6] Roach, R., 2008 Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors, AuthorHouse, p. 389.

[7] Buckminster Fuller, R., 1981, Critical Path

[8] Reg Park’s diet for a classic physique, Classic physique builder, https://classicphysiquebuilder.blogspot.com.au/2009/02/reg-parks-diet-for-classic-physique.html

Ian King

That single leg squat exercise description looks familiar!  

/by

The challenge of communicating exercise technique guide lines in writing is conveying enough and accurate information. So I have put a lot of thought and time into my exercise descriptions.

In 1999 I wrote this nice little description for the single leg squat (bolding added now):

Single leg squat
You know that I wouldn’t want you to miss out on doing these delightful unilateral movements, so here we go – stand on 1 leg beside the squat rack or similar. Place the other leg out so that the heel stays just off the ground at all times. Bend the support knee and go down as far as you can whilst keeping your foot flat on the ground. 3 seconds down, no pause, controlled explosive up. Initially I suspect your range will be limited but as you get better at it over time, aim to increase range as well (and maybe even more importantly) as reps. Using your bodyweight only, I expect somewhere between 5-10 reps on day one, and look to use DB’s in one hand if you exceed 15 reps. If this is the case, I have to wonder what you were doing during the earlier part of the workout?! Use the squat rack to hold on to for balance if needed (and you probably will need to) but don’t get sucked into the temptation of using it to pull yourself up. Remember this is a leg day!

I was conducting research and I came upon the following exercise in a publication copyright claimed by another author (bolding added):

One leg squat :

Stand on 1 leg beside the squat rack or similar. Place the other leg out so that the heel stays just off the ground at all times. Bent the support knee and go down as far as you can whilst keeping your foot flat on the ground. 3 seconds down, no pause, controlled explosive up. Initially I suspect your range will be limited but as you get better at it over time, aim to increase range as well (and maybe even more importantly) as reps. Using your bodyweight only, expect somewhere between 5-10 reps on day one, and look to use DB’s in one hand if you exceed 15 reps. Use the squat rack to hold on to for balance if needed (and you probably will need to) but don’t get sucked into the temptation of using it to pull yourself up.

And I said to myself: “That looks familiar!” So I cross-referenced it and I said to myself: “Wow! No wonder that looked familiar!”

Then in a different publication I came upon this (bolding added):

Single Leg Squat:
Stand on 1 leg beside the squat rack or similar. Place the other leg out so that the heel stays just off the ground at all times. Bent the support knee and go down as far as you can whilst keeping your foot flat on the ground. 3 seconds down, no pause, controlled explosive up. Initially I suspect your range will be limited but as you get better at it over time, aim to increase range as well (and maybe even more importantly) as reps. Using your bodyweight only, expect somewhere between 5-10 reps on day one, and look to use DB’s in one hand if you exceed 15 reps. Use the squat rack to hold on to for balance if needed (and you probably will need to) but don’t get sucked into the temptation of using it to pull yourself up.

And I said to myself: “That looks familiar!” So I cross-referenced it and I said to myself: “Wow! No wonder that looked familiar!”

Then in another publication I came upon this (bolding added):

Single Leg Squat:
Stand on 1 leg beside the squat rack or similar. Place the other leg out so that the heel stays just off the ground at all times. Bent the support knee and go down as far as you can whilst keeping your foot flat on the ground. 3 seconds down, no pause, controlled explosive up. Initially I suspect your range will be limited but as you get better at it over time, aim to increase range as well (and maybe even more importantly) as reps. Using your bodyweight only, expect somewhere between 5-10 reps on day one, and look to use DB’s in one hand if you exceed 15 reps. Use the squat rack to hold on to for balance if needed (and you probably will need to) but don’t get sucked into the temptation of using it to pull yourself up.

And I said to myself: “That looks familiar!” So I cross-referenced it and I said to myself: “Wow! No wonder that looked familiar!”

Then in another publication I came upon this (bolding added):

One leg squat:

Stand on 1 leg beside the squat rack or similar. Place the other leg out so that the heel stays just off the ground at all times. Bent the support knee and go down as far as you can whilst keeping your foot flat on the ground. 3 seconds down, no pause, controlled explosive up. Initially I suspect your range will be limited but as you get better at it over time, aim to increase range as well (and maybe even more importantly) as reps. Using your bodyweight only, expect somewhere between 5-10 reps on day one, and look to use DB’s in one hand if you exceed 15 reps. Use the squat rack to hold on to for balance if needed (and you probably will need to) but don’t get sucked into the temptation of using it to pull yourself up.

And I said to myself: “That looks familiar!” So I cross-referenced it and I said to myself: “Wow! No wonder that looked familiar!”

Then in ANOTHER publication I came upon this (bolding and underlining added):

Single leg squat
Start: Stand on your right leg with a bench behind you. Extend your left leg forward so that the heel stays just off the floor at all times.
Movement: Bend your right leg and lower yourself to the bench. Do not sit down. Instead skim the bench, and then drive back up to the starting position. During the movement, be sure to keep your right knee tracking over your middle toe. Initially, your range will be limited, but as you get better at it over time, aim to increase your range of motion by removing the bench and using a squat rack or other stable object to hold onto for light support until you are able to perform a single leg squat with full range of motion. Use only your bodyweight to start.

By now I knew it was going to be familiar….

I wonder how my other exercise descriptions fared?….

Ian King

Build 12″ Guns!

/by

You too can build 12” guns!! Excited? Okay, I agree, not very appealing. The only reason you would have been attracted to this headline is to see what’s wrong with the writer. But this is exactly what you are going to get when you take advice off people who probably have exactly that – 12” biceps.

I have read of late (more times than once) that you don’t need to do specific bicep exercises to build big biceps. Mmm. Wonder what the definition of big is? 12”?

Now before we get into it I want to make it real clear I am not glorifying big upper arms. I can take them or leave them. In fact when you look at my list of the disadvantages bulging biceps present you will appreciate this. What I am simply seeking to do is put forward a version that may help you get sucked into the bullshit, if in fact you do want to build big upper arms.

The proposal that you don’t need to do specific bicep exercises to build big upper arms can only, I conclude, come from the minds attached to bodies that have never build big upper arms.

Here are my concerns with building big biceps:

• Powerlifters are more likely to tear them in deadlifting

• Weightlifters struggle to catch the bar on their shoulders in the front squat/clean recovery position

• Athletes get distracted from effective strength training by building big upper arms

But apart from that, if you want to build big guns, go for it. If you want to take them significantly past 12”, you might want to ignore the no-bicep exercise bullshit.

You can see I’m not a big fan of bicep focused training for anyone other than bodybuilders and body beautifuls. But I am as equally not a fan of bullshit like this theory.

I found an example of this ‘no-bicep curl exercises needed’ theory in a book (1). I believe that the authors specifically set out to shape the readers value system and induce compliance to their theory with the following subjective statements:

• If they thought that doing a lot of sets of bicep curls every week would help them build their own biceps, they would be going out and doing this, just like the ‘meatheads and mooks’ do.

[You probably don’t want to think of yourself as a ‘meathead’ and/or ‘mook’ – so you may think twice about doing a bicep curl]

• Curls are mostly for newbie’s and juicers.

[You probably don’t want to feel or act like their definition of a newbie or a drug user, so you may choose to avoid doing bicep curls]

• The changes in muscle size would not be dramatic.

[A statement of fact, of dubious accuracy, but perhaps enough to discourage you from, God forbid, doing a curl]

• Unless you had a specifics reason for doing arm-isolated exercises, you should save your time and energy for other pursuits.

[Now if you needed any more discouragement, you just got it – no way are you ever going to do bicep curls again!]

Let’s take a step back. Where did these beliefs come from? Science of course. Three studies were quoted, none of which have any guarantee they relate to you. But let’s humor their ‘evidence’ for a bit longer.

The first study was conducted 13 years to the release of the book, was based on a research group of elderly m en. Unlikely to have any bearing on you, however that was enough for the writers to conclude that doing bicep curls only work for beginners.

The second study cited was conducted 14 years prior to the release of the book, and was based on competitive bodybuilders, again unlikely to have any specific bearing on you. But it was enough apparently for the authors to conclude therefore that any one beyond a beginner will see minimal if any hypertrophy from doing isolated bicep curls, because these competitive bodybuilders, during the period of this research study, didn’t.

With the third study cited, comfortingly was conducted in the same millennium, no details were provided of what they did, who they were, and there were allegedly no changes in arm size in the nine weeks of the program. It’s difficult to give any comment as to how this result may relate to you or not because inadequate details were given. Suffice to say it was allegedly research and therefore we don’t need details – we just need to believe! [Sounds a bit like sciences predecessor of social conditioning, religion…]

That’s it – on the basis of the above, you are to stop doing specific bicep curl exercises…..

Now what are the other alternatives that these writers and anyone else, yourself included, may reach a conclusion. That is, other than be basing your thoughts and actions on the apparent authority of the printed word, or on the basis of research with limited application to yourself.

Well, there is experience. You could come to your own conclusion based on your experiences. Let me share you mine. Now according to this theory, or at least this theory as presented by these ‘experts’, I should not get any results in increased upper arm girth from adding isolated bicep exercises. Why?

Because that only works for beginners and juicers, of which I am neither. And because a study conducted nearly two decades ago allegedly using experienced, competitive bodybuilders, failed so see any change in upper arm girth during the period of that particular study, that is further evidence that I would be wasting my time. After all, I too am experienced aren’t I? After all, these authors appear to have categorized themselves as experienced.

So furthering this line of thinking, what constitutes experienced? What equates with being a competitive bodybuilder? What if a person is one but not the other? Does that mean that this research applies still?
I can tell you this – I consider myself to be experience (continual strength training for approximately 30 years) but I am not, have never been and will never be a competitive bodybuilder. I know these authors have not, are not, and probably never will be competitive bodybuilders either. So it must be their experience that places them in the same category of non-response to isolated bicep curl as this study group cited above?

So how do you measure experience? Is it on number of years alone? Or is there potential for some level of qualification? Say an upper arm circumference measurement. Let me give you mine. Anything less than a 16” upper arm on an average height male is not advanced.

Anyway, as an experienced person (based on both years in training and passing this arbitrary upper arm circumference), what happens when I do isolated bicep training – they grow. Immediately.

So the value to you of the cited science is dubious, and the belief-shaping message by these authors (and others of their ilk) was not based on the writer’s personal experience, which is understandable as if you were as familiar with the upper arm circumference of the authors….

Yes, you can build big upper arms through heavy pressing and pulling, especially with the way the triceps dominate the bulk of the upper arm. But if you want to create specifically large biceps, create a peak in them, and maximize the contribution of the biceps to upper arms – you are not going to do this by avoiding specific bicep exercises. What research can I quote to give my statement credibility? None.

Or at least none that would fit the expectations of those who want to see a research article quoted, irrespective of whether it is relevant or not. Irrespective of whether it is valid or not. Irrespective of whether the researcher was even in town the day the research was allegedly conducted…

Just the observations over a few decades are used to support this conclusion.

This is just one example of how easily your conclusions and behavior can be influenced by people who seek to shape your beliefs, in the absence of personal experience.

[This is an extract from my upcoming book ‘Barbells & Bullshit]