The Steroid Strength Advantage: A Theoretical Approach • Strengtheory

Interesting stuff. Very wonky, but interesting. I like wonky.

from strengtheory.com
http://strengtheory.com/steroids-and-strength-differences/

The Steroid Strength Advantage: A Theoretical Approach

Nov 22 2016

Over the past year, I wrote a series of loosely related articles discussing the relationship of strength and muscle mass.I'm realizing now that I wrote them completely out of order.  This is the order they should have come out in, to introduce the concepts in a logical sequence.

1. Who's the Most Impressive Powerlifter to introduce the concept of allometric scaling and the difference between absolute strength and relative strength

1. Strength vs. Size: How Important is Muscle Growth for Strength Gains to discuss the relationship between strength and muscle size in more depth,

1. The Drug-Free Muscle and Strength Potential articles (one, two) to introduce the equations (based on muscle mass relative to height) that can be used to predict, quite accurately, strength potential for people who focus on powerlifting and are relatively gifted for the sport.

1. How Much More Muscle Can You Build With Steroids to rigorously assess the advantage steroids give you for building muscle.

1. This current article, to show the relative strength advantage you should expect to get from steroids.

1. Steroids for Strength Sports:  The Disappointing Truth to assess whether the predictions in this article, based on the equations presented and developed earlier in the series, actually play out in the real world.

However, I wrote them in almost the exact opposite order, so the first installment, which looked at the relative strength advantage provided by steroids, caused a bit of an uproar.  This was partially my fault since I hadn't provided enough context.  To many people, the estimate that steroids provided a relative strength advantage of roughly 10% seemed like it simply had to be too low (though it was based on the best available data).Couched in the context of the rest of this series, however, it's easy enough to demonstrate mathematically that the advantage you'd expect, based on the current research, is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10%.  That's what I aim to do in this article to tie this series together and put a nice little bow on it.If you've already read this series and you more-or-less understand all of the info and equations, you can just play around with the spreadsheet I made that does all the calculations for you.  Otherwise, keep reading for a quick recap of this series and an explainer of the equations used to arrive at the prediction.

---

Absolute vs. Relative StrengthThis is a key distinction and one that often gets lost in these discussions:Absolute strength is simply the amount of weight you can lift.  Relative strength is the amount of weight you can lift, relative to how large you are.For example, if your squat goes from 500 to 550lbs, your absolute strength has increased without doubt.  If it goes from 500 to 550lbs without a change in bodyweight, your relative strength has also increased.  However, if your squat goes from 500 to 550lbs while your weight goes from 200 to 250lbs, your relative strength has decreased.Relative strength is a thorny subject, because there's no single agreed-upon way to assess it.Strength to bodyweight ratios (i.e. squatting 2x bodyweight) are popular because they're simple, but they're not a great way to judge relative strength because they almost always favor lighter lifters.  There are a lot more 150lb lifters who deadlift 450lbs than there are 250lb lifters who deadlift 750lbs.Most powerlifting organizations use formulas like the Wilks formula or Glossbrenner formula to normalize relative strength performances and select the "best lifter" in a powerlifting meet.  The Sinclair formula in weightlifting serves the same purpose.  These formulas certainly do a better job than strength to bodyweight ratios, but I have some methodological quibbles with them.  They're not worth rehashing here, but you can read more about them in this article.The scaling method I prefer for assessing relative strength is 2/3 power allometric scaling.  This method of allometric scaling is based on the assumption that body mass scales linearly with body volume which is a third-order characteristic (which is a mathematically true relationship, assuming density – body composition in this case – remains constant), and strength scales linearly with muscle cross-sectional area which is a second-order characteristic (which may not always be true for people in the general population, but which seems to be true in the highly trained lifters for whom normalizing relative strength is important).Regardless of the method you use to assess relative strength, the distinction between absolute and relative strength is an important one.  Steroids certainly help you get stronger, but they primarily help you get stronger by helping you build more muscle.  That muscle isn't weightless, however, so the boost they provide for relative strength will be smaller than the boost they provide for absolute strength.Predicting Strength Based on Jacked-nessAs discussed in these two articles (one, two), there is a very strong relationship between strength and fat-free mass per unit of height in elite powerlifters.  Variation in FFM/cm can explain roughly 75% of the variability in bench and deadlift strength and almost 90% of the variability in squat strength.Based on these relationships, we can use a simple regression equation to predict someone's maximal strength capabilities based on how jacked they are:  Powerlifting total (in kg) = 1563.9(FFM/cm)+77.32So, for example, if someone's 180cm tall and has 80kg of lean body mass, you'd expect them to total around 760kg (1676lbs) if they were a very skilled powerlifter.Now, this formula doesn't hit the nail on the head every time.  Some people exceed the predictions if they're exceptionally skilled lifters and very gifted for strength, and many people fall short of the predictions if they don't train in a way that's optimized for strength development or if they're less gifted for strength development (and since the equation is based on high-level powerlifters, it is probably a bit too optimistic for a lot of people).  However, it certainly does a good enough job to put us in the right ballpark for predicting maximal strength capabilities for a larger group of people when we're dealing with averages.How Much More Jacked Can You Get With Steroids?For the long answer to this question, you can check out this article.  But here's the short version:Fat-free mass index (a formula to normalize the amount of lean body mass you have relative to your height) is often used to assess human muscularity.  The higher your FFMI, the more jacked you are.The average untrained male has an FFMI around 18.9.  With training, it seems the typical drug-free male ends up with an FFMI around 22.3, with a standard deviation of 1.9 FFMI points.  On the other hand, the typical steroid user ends up with an FFMI around 25.5, with a standard deviation of 2.6 FFMI points, based on data from Kouri and Brennan.In other words, the average steroid user gains roughly twice as much lean body mass over the course of a training career:  6.6 vs. 3.4 FFMI points.  For an average-height male, that means the typical steroid user ends up with 10.4kg (23lbs) more lean body mass than a non-user.Furthermore, the typical range of FFMIs for steroid users is larger than the typical FFMI range for non-users:  5.2FFMI points vs. 3.8 FFMI points (±1 standard deviation), meaning that as you get further from "average," the gap between users and non-users grows.  When you're dealing with averages, the typical steroid user may be 3.2 FFMI points bigger and have 10.4kg more lean body mass, but by the time you get 3 standard deviations above the mean (i.e. where elite athletes would end up), steroid users have a 5.3 FFMI point advantage, corresponding with about 17kg (38lbs) more lean body mass for an average-height male.In short, this should not come as a surprise to anyone, but steroids work really, really well for helping you build more muscle.The Effects of Steroids on Relative StrengthNow that the stage has been set, we can predict the relative advantage afforded by steroids with some simple arithmetic using the data and formulae above.  Click on the footnote to check my work. I'm just including all of the algebra so you can see I'm not using any mathematical sleights of hand.  I'll illustrate using allometric scaling to calculate relative strength.Assuming you don't want to do all the math by hand, you can play around with this spreadsheet instead.Let me walk you through it.Page 1:  Initial AssumptionsThe numbers you enter on this page will substantially influence every other calculation.The data entered in cells C6 through C10 are editable.  The first four come filled-in based on the FFMI data provided by Kouri and Brennan, but you can play around with different assumptions to see how they affect the calculations.  Cell C10 (odds a random person in a population is drug-free) is entirely up to you, and it affects the odds of someone's natty-ness with a given FFMI on the third page.Page 2:  Steroid Strength AdvantageThis page does all of the really ugly algebraic calculations for you and shows you the differences in users and non-users every step of the way.All you need to do is fill in cells C4 through C7, and it'll do the rest.This is fun to play with, I think.  It seems taller people are afforded a larger advantage than shorter people.  The assumptions you make about the differences in body fat percentage has a pretty large impact.  If you assume steroids let people stay 10% leaner, the relative strength advantage is roughly 60% larger than if you assume steroids let people stay 5% leaner, for example.  Finally, you can see how the advantage afforded by steroids gets progressively larger the further you get from the mean.  The relative strength advantage is roughly 50% larger at 3-4 SDs from the mean versus 0 standard deviations from the mean.Also note that the relative strength advantage is always smaller than the absolute strength advantage.  This page also lets you see who's advantaged and disadvantaged by each relative strength formula at various body weights.  More muscle provides a larger allometric scaling benefit than Wilks benefit for lighter lifters, but the trend is reversed for taller/heavier lifters.Page 3:  Odds Someone Is Drug-FreeThis page is an upgraded version of the tables near the end of this article.It's pretty simple.  You fill in the blue squares, and the sheet calculates the FFMI based on the data you input.  Then, based on some more simple math (probability density functions for FFMIs of users and non-users, based on the means and standard deviations of each population, weighted by your assumptions about the proportion of a population you think is actually drug-free), it tells you the probability that someone with such an FFMI is drug-free.The blue curve is the odds of attaining a specific FFMI for a drug-free person, and the red curve is the odds of attaining a specific FFMI for someone on steroids.  Both are weighted based on the percentage of the specific population you think is drug-free.  For example, if you think 80% of the people in a given population are drug-free, it'll make the blue curve bigger and the red curve smaller.  The peak of the red curve is further to the right, denoting a higher average degree of muscularity for steroid-users, and there's also more spread, denoting the larger standard deviation (potentially arising from differences in the compounds and dosages people use) for steroid-users' FFMIs.The yellow curve is the probability that someone with a given FFMI is drug-free (the likelihood is on the right y-axis).  You see that where the blue curve is higher than the red curve, the probability is higher (indicating more drug-free people with a given FFMI), and where the red curve is higher than the blue curve, the probability is lower (indicating more steroid-users with a given FFMI).  At the FFMI where the two curves intersect, the probability of someone being drug-free is 50/50.The assumptions you start with on the first tab will affect this graph substantially – if you change the mean FFMIs for each group, that will shift the red and blue curves left or right.  If you change the FFMI standard deviations, that will affect how spread-out the red and blue curves are.  If you change the proportion of a population you think is drug-free, that'll impact the overall size of each curve.  All of these changes will affect the probability that someone with a given FFMI is drug-free (the yellow curve).

---

Perception = Reality.  The Power of Confirmation BiasThis is where the rubber meets the road for this whole series.Depending on the assumptions you start with, you can get any outcome you want from this spreadsheet.  The first page (initial assumptions) determines how the rest of this sheet will behave.If you go with the FFMI data from Brennan and Kouri (FFMIs of 22.3 ± 1.9 for non-users, and 25.5 ± 2.6 for users) and assume a steroid user can stay about 5% leaner than a non-user, you'd expect steroids to provide a relative strength advantage of roughly 7% for an average person, and around 11% for people 4SDs from the mean (averaging allometric scaling and Wilks).If you start with the assumption that an FFMI of 25 is a hard limit for non-users (a common myth), then you'd expect a relative strength advantage of 16-17% 4 SDs from the mean.  If you combine that assumption with the assumption that users can stay 10% leaner instead of 5%, and the relative strength advantage jumps to almost 20%.Similarly, if you start with the assumption that 50% of drug-tested powerlifters or bodybuilders are lying about drug use, then based on Brennan and Kouri's FFMI data, someone who's 180cm tall, 90kg, and 10% bodyfat with an FFMI of exactly 25 would have a 33.7% chance of being drug-free.  If you assume 95% of drug-tested athletes are actually drug-free, then this person would have a 90% chance of being drug-free.  If you assume 80% of them are lying, however, his odds of being drug-free would be only 11%. Top image: Same total number of users are non-users. Middle image: 19x more non-users than users. Bottom image: 4x more users than non-users. Notice how much earlier the yellow probability line drops in the bottom image vs. the middle image.I think this is the fundamental reason why this is such a contentious subject.  People come to this discussion with different sets of assumptions, and those assumptions alter their expectations.  Those expectations affect how they interpret what they see (and even what data they'll accept and what data they'll reject), which further ingrains their biases.  People who start with charitable assumptions about what drug-free athletes can accomplish and charitable assumptions about the proportion of drug-tested athletes who are actually drug-free are automatically labeled as naïve. Conversely, people who start with low assumptions about what drug-free athletes can accomplish and who assume most tested athletes are just cheaters who are beating the tests are automatically labeled as overly cynical.This spreadsheet should show you how both "sides" can feel comfortable with their conclusions, based on differences in starting assumptions.

---

Bringing this series full-circle, the roughly 10% relative strength advantage from steroids proposed in this article seems to be a figure with experimental, observational, and (now) theoretical support.  If you use Kouri and Brennan's FFMI data, for most reasonable heights, body composition differences (0-10%), and distances from the mean (i.e. unless you project things out to 6+ standard deviations from the mean), the predicted relative strength advantage afforded by steroids tends to hover between 6-13% for both Wilks and Allometric Scaling.If you disagree with the figure, there are a few ways you could dispute it:

1. Provide better data showing average FFMIs for users and non-users.

1. Show that the relationship between FFM/cm and strength is substantially different from the one found in Brechue and Abe's work.  Crucially, the strength increase for each increase in FFM would need to be larger than the one they found (a smaller increase per kg of FFM would decrease the predicted relative advantage of gaining FFM via steroids).

1. Provide solid data showing that steroids increase strength independent of gains in muscle mass in elite athletes (i.e. that they raise the limit of attainable normalized muscle force, and don't just potentially increase the rate of increase in untrained people).  This is an idea I've seen floated before, but haven't come across any solid data to support it.

Otherwise, I think it's time to put a bow on this series for now.Featured Image Credit:  hookgrip

---

Basic formula:(Allometric scaling score drug-free – allometric scaling score with steroids)/(allometric scaling score with steroids)Expand the allometric scaling formula; Allometric scaling score = weight lifting × (body mass)^-2/3(Drug-free powerlifting total × (drug-free body mass)^-2/3 – Powerlifting total with steroids × (body mass with steroids)^-2/3)/(Powerlifting total with steroids × (body mass with steroids)^-2/3)Expand the formula used to predict strength; Powerlifting total (in kg) = 1563.9(FFM/cm)+77.32((1563.9 × (Drug-free FFM/cm) + 77.32) × (drug-free body mass)^-2/3 – (1563.9 × (FFM with drugs/cm) + 77.32) × (body mass with steroids)^-2/3)/((1563.9 × (FFM with drugs/cm) + 77.32) × (body mass with steroids)^-2/3)Expand the body mass formulae; Normalized FFMI = FFM/(height in m)² + 6.1 × (1.8 – height in m), so FFM = (FFMI – 6.1 × (1.8 – height in m)) × (height in m)².  Body mass = Lean body mass/(1 – body fat percentage)((1563.9 × (((Drug-free FFMI – 6.1 × (1.8 – (cm/100)))*(cm/100)²)/cm) + 77.32) × (((Drug-free FFMI – 6.1 × (1.8 – (cm/100)))*(cm/100)²)/(1 – drug-free bodyfat percentage))^-2/3 – (1563.9 × (((FFMI with steroids – 6.1 × (1.8 – (cm/100)))*(cm/100)²)/cm) + 77.32) × (((FFMI with steroids – 6.1 × (1.8 – (cm/100)))*(cm/100)²)/(1 – bodyfat percentage with steroids))^-2/3)/((1563.9 × (((FFMI with steroids – 6.1 × (1.8 – (cm/100)))*(cm/100)²)/cm) + 77.32) × (((FFMI with steroids – 6.1 × (1.8 – (cm/100)))*(cm/100)²)/(1 – bodyfat percentage with steroids))^-2/3))Now allow for FFMI variability to account for standard deviations; FFMI = Mean FFMI ± (number of standard deviations × size of standard deviation)((1563.9 × ((((mean drug-free FFMI ± (drug-free FFMI standard deviation × standard deviations from the mean)) – 6.1 × (1.8 – (cm/100)))*(cm/100)²)/cm) + 77.32) × (((((mean drug-free FFMI ± (drug-free FFMI standard deviation × standard deviations from the mean)) – 6.1 × (1.8 – (cm/100)))*(cm/100)²)/(1 – drug-free bodyfat percentage))^-2/3 – (1563.9 × (((((mean FFMI with steroids ± (FFMI standard deviation with steroids × standard deviations from the mean)) – 6.1 × (1.8 – (cm/100)))*(cm/100)²)/cm) + 77.32) × (((((mean FFMI with steroids ± (FFMI standard deviation with steroids × standard deviations from the mean)) – 6.1 × (1.8 – (cm/100)))*(cm/100)²)/(1 – bodyfat percentage with steroids))^-2/3)/((1563.9 × (((((mean FFMI with steroids ± (FFMI standard deviation with steroids × standard deviations from the mean)) – 6.1 × (1.8 – (cm/100)))*(cm/100)²)/cm) + 77.32) × (((((mean FFMI with steroids ± (FFMI standard deviation with steroids × standard deviations from the mean)) – 6.1 × (1.8 – (cm/100)))*(cm/100)²)/(1 – bodyfat percentage with steroids))^-2/3))The number it spits out will be negative, denoting the relative disadvantage of a drug-free athlete.P.S. I'm almost certain there are too many parentheses above.We can plug in height in cm, means and standard deviations for FFMI with and without steroids (based on Kouri and Brennan's data, or your own assumptions), how many standard deviations from the mean you're interested in (i.e. are you interested in the average advantage of steroids, or the advantage they give elite competitors), and the bodyfat percentages where you think someone would perform best on steroids and drug-free (since most people assume that steroids allow you to get leaner before performance is compromised), and this formula will predict the relative advantage steroids will give.

1. ↩

Sent from my iPhone

A Coaches Guide to Strength Training Part II (Tables)

McMillanSpeed...: a coaches' guide to strength development: PART II

				McMillanSpeed...: a coaches' guide to strength developme... Thank you for coming back for section II.  This will be much lighter on the science - as well as a little shorter.  We felt it was imperative that readers had a goo...
				View on www.mcmillanspeed.com	Preview by Yahoo

Table 1: Prilepin's Table

Table 2: Jordan's Table

Table 3: McMillan Table

10 Things Every Lifter Should Be Able to Do | T Nation

This is why it kinda sucks to be me. OK, so I love Dan John. And really, how could you not? Pithy sayings like the one above are attributed to you. Fancy resume listed below and decent photo shoot.

Dude looks like the Mike Golic of strength and conditioning, right? So he's probably cool inside the gym and a cool guy to party with as well. So I read his stuff. Including the article listed below.

Dan John

Dan John is an elite-level strength and weightlifting coach. He is also an All-American discus thrower, holds the American record in the Weight Pentathlon, and has competed at the highest levels of Olympic lifting and Highland Games. 

That's when the "my life kinda sucks" part starts. Because by the time I'm done reading the article and doing the appropriate kind of self analysis embedded within, my inner voice kind of sounds like this....

On to the test results: Your results may vary, and I hope to God they do. 

1. Bench your Bodyweight - FAIL, used to be able to handle this one easily.
2. Deadlift double your Bodywieght - FAIL, snap I couldn't do #1, what makes you think...
3. Hold a Two-Minute Plank - FAIL, dang, I can't do things I like for two minutes, what makes you think....I'll try the KB carry some day
4. Sleep with only one pillow - PASS, this one I liked. A lot.
5. Sit on Floor Without Using Hands, Knees, or Shins - FAIL, Fool, are you trying to break my a$$?
6. Balance on One Foot for 10 Seconds - PASS/FAIL My good foot passed, my bad foot failed. I am getting credit for a 0.5 PASS!!
7. Hang for 30 Seconds, Pull-Up - PASS, Barely...
8. Long Jump Your Height - FAIL, Here I thought my lack of height would be an advantage to start and I just ended up almost breaking my a$$ again.
9. 30-Second Bodyweight Squat and Hold - PASS, Barely
10. Farmers Walk Your Bodyweight - PASS, Barely

So 4.5 out of 10. Not bad for an old dude. 

I'm changing the phrase "Life sucks, then you get old" to "Life sucks WHEN you get old" or did Betty Davis kind of say the same thing with her "old age  is no place for sissies" quote? 

Oh well, I still love Dan John. Even if I did almost break my a$$ twice. 

===

from T-Nation.com

https://www.t-nation.com/training/10-things-every-lifter-should-be-able-to-do

10 Things Every Lifter Should Be Able to Do

Take the Tests, Identify Weaknesses, and Get Better

by Dan John | 09/28/15

10-things-every-lifter-should-be-able-to-do

Tags: Powerlifting & Strength Mobility

Focus on what you need to do, not necessarily on what you want to do. That's the secret to strength training success. But how do you know what you need to do? Easy. Make sure you can do everything on the following checklist. Any shortcomings will shine a bright light on your weaknesses, then you can fix them and get better.

1 – Bench Your Bodyweight

Mastering bodyweight on the barbell is the transition between beginner and intermediate. I'm amazed when people who've been training a while still can't bench bodyweight. Seven-foot tall genetic anomalies with crazy levers aside, the bodyweight bench press is something you should be able to do. For many, it's a technical issue. For others it's a problem of variation.

The technical problem: To be strong, the joints need to stack up on each other. Along with understanding tension, this seems to be a lost fact with many lifters. Some people will bench with a grip that would be perfect for a middle school boy – too narrow. Your elbow should be directly under your wrist while benching. It might take a workout or two to adapt, so have someone "eyeball" your elbows and wrists. They should be basically vertical. This little hint always helps people bench more.

The variation problem: Keep an eye on how much "stuff" you're packing into your workouts. Military (overhead) pressing will probably help your bench, but adding inclines, dumbbell presses, flyes and all the extra chest work is often the issue holding you back. Too much is too much, and until you bench at least bodyweight you don't need the extra stuff.

Now, if you can bench bodyweight, can you also front squat and clean bodyweight? If yes, then can you snatch it? See where we're going here? Master bodyweight on the barbell, first and foremost.

2 – Deadlift Double Your Bodyweight

This is a basic test, but some might struggle to do this for years. Grip strength, position, tension control and injuries might all conspire against you here.

Here's the odd thing, most people don't need to deadlift to improve their deadlift. Pull-ups will help with grip, kettlebell swings will help with hip and glute strength, and high-rep squats can teach tension. I've yet to meet a good Olympic lifter that couldn't pull a big deadlift – without any deadlift training. Getting strong in the fundamentals gets you strong in the deadlift.

Powerlifters may disagree, but the great lifter Hugh Cassidy said that only silverbacks can deadlift more than once a week. So, what do you do the rest of the time? Simply put, "work" increases a deadlift. Push a Prowler, farmer walk, squat heavy for high reps, get stronger. Dedicating three to six months of heavy, hard training without deadliftingwill do miracles for your deadlift.

3 – Hold a Two-Minute Plank

I like the push-up position plank (PUPP) as it challenges the shoulders a bit more and makes it nearly impossible to rest the gut on the ground during the test. It doesn't matter what plank you do, but can you fight tension for two minutes?

Dr. Stu McGill has said that if you can't hold a two-minute plank then either you're obese or your ab training is terrible. Let me add a third: you don't understand tension.

Now, you can address this shortcoming by practicing the plank. That's actually a good thing for many people. Learning to crank up the tension is a secret in strength training. Many neophytes simply can't ratchet up the whole body tension needed for maximal lifting.

There's another way, too. Pick up a reasonably heavy kettlebell or dumbbell in one hand and walk with it. This suitcase carry is a walking plank and the load is going to teach the body tension while moving. Most people start with at least 50 pounds, but going much over 100 might not help much. You don't want to wilt like a flower as you walk. Stay tall and strong.

Kettlebell Carry

Suitcase carries are simple to add into any training program. For distance, simply go as far as you can with one arm and return with the other. Today, you'll notice your grip strength. Tomorrow, you'll notice your obliques.

4 – Sleep With Only One Pillow

How many pillows do you need? If you answer more than one, you need mobility and flexibility work, and maybe even a visit to the physical therapist. Having to prop your head so far forward is a sign you could be dealing with some kyphosis – excessive curvature of the spine causing a hunching of the back.

Vlad Janda taught us half a century ago that the tonic muscles – specifically the pecs, biceps, hamstrings, and hip flexors – tighten with age, injury, and illness. So focus flexibility work there first. If you have joint issues, surgery or rehab might be the correct answer to the problem versus "I'll just work around it." If you have massive asymmetries, balancing this out earlier rather than later might be a good way to sleep through the night. Move well, sleep well.

 Training Success

5 – Sit on Floor Without Using Hands, Knees, or Shins

Go from standing to sitting on the floor without any assistance of your hands, knees, or shins, and then get up without putting weight on any other part of your body other than your feet.

This test literally can save your life, and the research bears this out. It gives some insights, statistically, into your life expectancy. (Look up Dr. Araujo at the Clinimex-Exercise Medicine Clinic if you want the details.) It's also very predictive of long-term flexibility, physical strength, and coordination.

This set of tests will give you a full-body safety check. I call them the "hang on to these as long as you can" standards.

Now, if you're younger than 50 and struggle with one of these tests, begin thinking about your long-term health and fitness. Basically, something that's correctable now might not be correctable when you enter the golden years.

6 – Balance on One Foot for 10 Seconds

Stand on one foot for 10 seconds. Failing the stand-on-one-foot assessment might be a sign of a serious problem. For me it was a hip issue.

7 – Hang for 30 Seconds, Pull-Up

Hang from a bar for 30 seconds. Aside from grip strength, the hanging test might highlight some shoulder and spinal issues.

Can you do that easily? Good. Now try this: Hang from the bar for thirty seconds. When the timer rings, do a pull-up. If you can do that, you're not too bad. Now let's ramp it up. Without letting go, drop back down and hang for another thirty seconds and do a second pull-up. For the true crazies, let's see who can do 10 of these 30-second hang pull-ups. Few can. Gripping is the weak point for most lifters.

8 – Long Jump Your Height

Every athletic person should be able to do a standing long jump for as far as they are tall. And besides, if there's a rattlesnake in your path, that jump will clear you from danger. If you can't do it, just start practicing it. That's all most people need to do to get back to this standard and stay there.

9 – 30-Second Bodyweight Squat and Hold

Squat down, hold 30 seconds, and then stand up without using your hands. This gives you a general insight into your lower body health.

10 – Farmers Walk Your Bodyweight

Farmers walk your bodyweight for a few steps. If the zombie apocalypse does happen, the farmers walk test will help you move your stuff. And of course it also shows that you're reasonably strong in a "functional" manner, have decent conditioning, and you're not too fat.

Sent from my iPhone

Why You Should Be A Strength Coach Go - Giver! - Zach Even-Esh

http://zacheven-esh.com/strength-coach-go-giver/

Training Primer App

This is one of my favorite phone apps, along with MapmyRuns and Weight Watchers. 
Great information and organization at your fingertips. It's all good until I have to figure out how to migrate this stuff to my wrist watch.

Multi-Year Weight Training for iOS

			Multi-Year Weight Training for iOS Okay, let's get serious with the only app specifically designed around modern training methods to facilitate continued progress above and beyond initial gains.
			View on www.weightliftingap...	Preview by Yahoo

Training Primer

DEC13

In theory, weight training is simple: lift weights and over time you become bigger and stronger. In reality, there is a little more to it than that.

Not everyone responds to the same program in the same way. Some people don't respond at all. Sport scientists call these people "non-responders". But before you start calling yourself a "non-responder", think about some very practical advice -- try a variety of programs and see what works for you. While you may be a "non-responder" with one program you could also be a "high-responder" with another. That could also change in time. Today a "high-responder" with one, tomorrow a "low-responder", and finally a "non-responder". Then you're back to the experimental stage, looking for something else that works.

Thankfully, it doesn't need to be a guessing game. Sport scientists in the former Soviet Union developed a highly effective and comprehensive long-term training approach that takes one from using simple calisthenics all the way to becoming a world class athlete.

Process of Attaining Sports Mastery (PASM)

While you may not be an aspiring Olympian, you probably want to get from point A to point B using the most direct route. The underlying theme is to begin with general adaptation and progress towards specific adaptation.

The process can be further broken down into different qualification levels.

Elementary Stage: General Fitness and Diet

This stage is characterized by weak and unpredictable motor patterns, dynamic instability and low perceptual ability (think about throwing a ball with your non-dominant hand). The goal during this stage is to increase trainability by enhancing agility, balance, coordination and flexibility through low intensity activities such as calisthenics, stretching, running, jumping, climbing, swimming, etc.

Over time, variability decreases and neuromuscular coordination develops, creating a framework for subsequently developed motor skills. With an integrated motor system, it becomes possible to train effectively.

This stage lasts several years and is typically completed by the middle of puberty.

Acquisition Stage: Specific Motor Patterns

It is assumed that trainees in this stage have a good diet and level of conditioning. Trainees wishing to enter this stage that do not meet these requirements will need to allocate an appropriate amount of training volumetowards remedial activities from the previous stage. As fitness improves, the volume and focus on these activities can be reduced to maintenance levels.

The primary objectives here are to learn the basic lifts (bench press, squat, overhead press, bent over row, deadlift, and pull up) and increase muscle mass. This is achieved with a high volume of compound exercises at low to moderate intensity. As in the previous stage, motor skills progressively advance.

Good form and repetition are the keywords. This stage typically lasts one year.

Proficiency Stage: Lightly trained

By this stage, the trainee has differentiated themselves from the general population. The scientific terminology is "trained". Having acquired good form in the basic lifts and built a foundation of muscle mass, more intense training methods can now be effectively utilized.

Additionally, while the basic lifts are excellent overall exercises, they are not the last word. Due to individual differences between people, e.g., body segment lengths, they will not develop the individual muscles involved to the same degree. As such, continued development will require identification of undertrained areas followed by the application of specialized corrective work. With the careful selection of secondary exercises, progress will continue (since the need for secondary exercises arises from individual differences, each trainees' requirements will differ).

The typical duration of this stage is two years after which the trainee should have completed around 10,000 repetitions of the basic lifts.

Mastery Stage: Highly Trained

Training at this level is highly specialized and usually centers on competition.

Your Natural Muscle Limit

There are limits to natural muscle growth. Someone just starting out can usually gain up to 0.5 lb of muscle per week provided they eat enough. However, eating too much will lead to additional body weight gain but it won't come from muscle mass.

Someone that has been training for some time and is closer to their genetic limit will gain muscle at a slower rate and so will require less calories in excess of their maintenance level.

Here are some general guidelines:

• Untrained: 2 lbs muscle per month (+20% calories per day above maintenance)
• Lightly Trained: 1 lbs muscle per month (+15% calories per day above maintenance)
• Moderately Trained: 0.5 lb muscle per month (+10% calories per day above maintenance)
• Highly Trained: 0.25 lb muscle per month (+5% calories per day above maintenance)
• Elite: Negligible

1. Training Organization

1.1 The principle of super-compensation

The immediate effect of training is a depletion of the capacity to perform work. Recovery begins following training and concludes with a temporary overshoot of the initial work capacity.

This overshoot is called super-compensation and it is the root of why adaptation ultimately occurs. Therefore, the intention of the exercise/recovery pair should be to stimulate super-compensation.

Figure A: Super-compensation

Figure B shows the results of well timed super-compensation cycles.

Figure B: Gradual increase in performance

Magnitude of Stimulus

Exercise is the stimulus. The magnitude of stimulus is commonly refered to as the "training load".

Figure C illustrates three classifications of training load. The retaining load is the amount of work your body is currently adapted to. A training load of this magnitude results in the maintenance of your current fitness. Less than that will result in a decrease in fitness. Only a stimulating load, or overload, will result in super-compensation.

Figure C: Different training loads

It is also important to realize that a training load that classifies as a stimulating load for a beginner will likely result in detraining of an advanced trainee.

In other words, because of adaptation, a stimulating load today will not always be a stimulating load tomorrow. To continue producing a super-compensating response to training, the training load must increase. This is the idea behind progressive resistance training.

Minimum Overload

In theory, a greater load results in a larger response. In practice however, a greater load requires a longer recovery period and so diminishes some of the performance gains.

Ideally, the training load should be the minimum overload required to simultaneously drive progress and allow fast recovery, while avoiding the risks of excessive overload.

In practice, that means once you do a little more than you did before, call it a day.

Figure D: Relationship between load and recovery

Since the magnitude of a training stimulus must increase over time and because a greater stimulus requires a longer recovery time, the super-compensation cycle gradually lengthens as one progresses in ability. Eventually, it becomes impractical to produce a sufficient stimulus with a single workout.

Figure E illustrates the cumulative fatigue acquired over several training sessions if recovery is incomplete. Many trainees inadvertently enter this type of training without knowing how to make the most out of it.

Figure E: Gradual decrease in performance

Figure F shows how this can be used to setup a multiple week super-compensation cycle. Instead of looking at each workout as a separate loading session, followed by a separate recovery session, think in terms of weeks, i.e., two or three loading weeks followed by a recovery week. Training organization at this level is usually called a mesocycle.

Figure F: Accumulation/Intensification Mesocycle

In figure F, a hypothetical trainee exceeds recovery capacity for three weeks then reduces the load on the fourth week to initiate super-compensation. During the fifth and sixth week, the trainee takes advantage of recovering work capacity to set new records by switching to a lower volume but higher intensity loading protocol. This is why it's not unusual for a trainee that finds it impossible to break through a plateau to power through one after taking a break.

Notice that super-compensation in this case is created by the additive effects of many training sessions.

For a beginner, super-compensation can result from a single exercise session and take as little as 48 hours. Progress is rapid for the beginner. An advanced trainee may require several weeks before super-compensation occurs. Obviously, the best results come from starting with short cycles and only lengthening them as they become necessary.

1.2 Different ways to stress your body

There are four variables accounting for training stress.

• Load: i.e., 5 sets of 5 reps at 300 lbs for 7500 lbs
• Intensity: expressed here as

  Intensity =	Load x 100
  	Volume xTotal

  where volume is the number of workset reps and total is the sum of bench and deadlift 1RMs.
• Frequency: training sessions per week
• Rest Intervals: amount of time spent resting between sets

This program will manipulate these variables in order to produce significant results in a relatively short period of time.

1.3 Different effects of variables

A high intensity training load will place stress on different systems than a high volume load.

• Central nervous system (central fatigue): High intensity loading leads to a depletion of neurotransmitters. Symptoms are psychological and include lack of motivation, poor mood, impaired cognitive ability, etc..
• Metabolic/Structural (peripheral fatigue): High volume loading leads to a depletion of energy systems, accumulation of waste products and tissue breakdown.

In figure G, the CNS gets a rest during the high volume hypertrophy mesocycle while the muscles get hammered. The opposite occurs during the high intensity strength mesocycle, allowing the muscles to super-compensate.

Figure G: Volume vs Intensity

1.4 Accommodation and using benchmarks

Over time the body will decrease its response to a continued stimulus. So in order to keep making progress, training must vary. However, since the body adapts specifically to the applied stimulus, training must be stable. Because training must paradoxically be both variable and stable, it is useful to employ a benchmark to evaluate the effectiveness of variable training (this program uses the sum of the squat, bench and deadlift as the benchmark).

2. Exercise Selection and Concepts

2.1 Weak points

A major part of making long term progress is being able to identify and address weak points. A weak point could be a problem with:

• joint mobility
• muscle flexibility
• weak muscle
• movement pattern
• poor technique

The most common muscle weaknesses are the vastus medialis, hamstrings, scapulae retractors, and external rotators.

2.2 Failure

1. Technical Failure: You fail to complete the rep using proper form and tempo. If the set tempo requires slow movements and you can only finish the set by going fast, that's failure. If you are supposed to hold the bottom position for two seconds and you bounce it out of the hole, that's failure. If you need a short pause between reps and it's not a rest-pause set or you need excessive breaks between sets, that's failure.
2. Concentric Failure: You are unable to lift the weight for another rep.
3. Static Failure: You are unable to hold the weight at any point in the range of motion.
4. Eccentric Failure: You are unable to lower the weight under control.

Absolute failure is when you fail on all 4 types.

Technical failure will always occur first. That is where you should stop the set. Other than for reasons of injury prevention, the recovery time is shorter allowing greater rates of progress.

Of course, in order to recognize technical failure, you will need good technique to begin with (check YouTube for technique demonstrations). Also, don't neglect tempos and rest intervals. Doing so would introduce unplanned variations of training stimuli.

2.3 Types of muscle tension

• Maximal Effort (ME): Doing an all out set with a mass above 90% 1RM. This increases CNS efficiency with a minimal impact on hypertrophy. Due to a higher risk of injury it is not recommended for beginners. ME is useful for hypertrophy in that heavier weights can be used for RE and SE.
• Repetition Effort (RE): Using a submaximal load and lifting it until concentric failure. This has a greater impact on muscle metabolism and hypertrophy with a lower risk of injury. RE improves ME potential through greater muscle size.
• Submaximal Effort (SE): Similar results with RE but stopped at technical failure. Because of greater control at the end of the set, this method is useful for technique development.
• Dynamic Effort (DE): Using a submaximal load and lifting it as explosively as possible. DE helps improve ME.

2.4 Types of Progression

The objective in weight lifting is to make progress over the long term. In the short term, we have to deal with the fact that as the body is adapting to training, training becomes less effective. Thankfully, there are a variety of ways to alter the stimulus so as to maintain progress over time.

• Mass: increasing the weight lifted
• Reps: increasing the reps performed
• Sets: adding additional sets
• %RM: increasing the intensity of the lifts
• Rest Intervals: decreasing rest intervals between sets
• Tempo: increasing the eccentric tempo, decreasing the concentric tempo, and increasing static holds
• Movements: moving from partial range of motion lifts to full range of motion
• Methods: changing set styles e.g., drop-sets, supersets, rest-pause sets, etc.

Any well thought out training plan will vary these types of progression in a way that makes sense.

2.5 The lift pyramid

• Primary Exercises: These are major, compound lifts (e.g., bench). They allow the use of the heaviest weights and place the highest demand on the body and nervous system. Use any of the four types of muscle tension.
• Supplementary Exercises: These have a similar movement pattern with the primary exercise and are used to place more emphasis on specific muscle groups (e.g., close grip bench). These have a slightly lower demand on the body and nervous system. Use any of the four types of muscle tension.
• Accessory Exercises: These do not necessarily mimic the technique of the primary exercise, but contribute indirectly to its performance (e.g., dumbbell flys). These are usually isolation exercises and use lighter weights, placing a low demand on the body and nervous system. Use the repetition effort method.
• Corrective Exercises: These are used to correct problems or very specific weak points (rotator cuff exercises). Use the submaximal effort method.
• General physical preparation: a wide variety of non-weightlifting-based movements that improve conditioning and athleticism (stretching, running, etc.).

When your goal is to build strength, supplementary exercises are the secondary exercise of choice. When the objective is to refine an already developed body with targeted hypertrophy, use accessory exercises in addition to the primary exercises. Just remember this: similarity is for strength and variety is for hypertrophy.

Regardless of your goal, the primary exercises will be the center of your exercise program. The secondary exercises come and go as needed. When progress on the secondary exercise stalls, simply rotate in a new variation.

3. Progress Rate

Suppose you bench 100 lbs and squat 200 lbs this week. Next week you bench 102.5 lbs and squat 205 lbs, corresponding to a 2.5% weekly increase. It may not seem like much at first, but you'll bench 360 lbs and squat 720 lbs at the end of the year if you maintain that rate.

Realistically, more than tripling your lifts in a year would place enormous stress on your body. Something will go wrong along the way preventing that rate of gain from actually happening. Your actual progress over the course of the year will average less than 2.5% even if you do everything perfectly. Sometimes it will be faster, most of the time slower.

Progress will be most rapid in the initial phases of training when a new stimulus is introduced, then slow as your body adapts to it (see Figure J). For optimal long-term strength gains, weekly progress should range between 0-5%.

Sustained progress over 5% per week is just asking for trouble since the muscles, nervous system, tendons, and joints all have different recovery times. What the muscles need for growth would be too much for the CNS over the long-term. What is needed for strength gains would be too much for the tendons and joints.

Figure J: Accommodation to training stimulus

Once your body has adapted to the stimulus (plateaued), in order for progress to continue, the training variables must change (i.e., volume, intensity, frequency, density, progression type, exercise selection, tempo, etc.).

Ideally, a well planned variation of training variables will result in progress over time resembling Figure K.

Figure K: Cumulative progress