Caren and Bret at the 2017 Fitness Summit

As you will see in the training highlight reel below, she has a very lean and muscular physique. Her scale weight has remained about the same for the last decade, so that means that she has not only increased her strength levels an appreciable amount (and arguably decelerated the aging process), but she has also packed on a considerable amount of lean mass while simultaneously decreasing body fat.

Most of my regular followers know that I frequently espouse the importance of progressive overload on this blog and on my social media posts. By adhering to these principles, Caren has gradually added muscle to her frame year after year. Her very first set of hip thrusts were with 80-lbs, and as you can see from the data below, she has succeeded at building enviable strength well into her 50’s.

Here’s a look at some of Caren’s PR’s from the last year (weight in lbs x # of reps):

Now check out this kick ass training compilation:

I sincerely hope that Caren’s journey inspires many people to follow suit. Much respect to Caren’s husband Tom who trains with her, pushes her, films her, tracks her progress, re-racks her weights, and supports her week in and week out – you’re good people Tom!

If you aren’t already strength training, it is never too late to start. Don’t ever forget – age ain’t nothin’ but a number.

Click HERE to check out Caren’s IG.

#thethrustisamust More than 8 reps is really just cardio, starting off with 215×12 #fitover50 #fitmom #getglutes #strong #strongbybret #strongcurves #getglutes #liftlikeagirl @atlas_fit @bretcontreras1 @the_hip_thruster

A post shared by Caren Kilgore (@ourwarren) on May 24, 2017 at 11:08am PDT

This is a new PR – 217.5 Given a small sample size n=1 it turns out that drilling on conventional DL translates to strength increases on the TB deadlift. Hit the new PR a week ahead of schedule. Great programming @bretcontreras1 #strongbybret #strongcurves #getglutes #fitover50 #fitmom #strong #liftitgirl

A post shared by Caren Kilgore (@ourwarren) on May 19, 2017 at 10:54am PDT

Wearing the tights of many colors, lifting all the weights #austin #fitover50 #fitmom #getglutes #strong #strongbybret #liftlikeagirl #beautifulbadass #strongcurves @bretcontreras1

A post shared by Caren Kilgore (@ourwarren) on Nov 12, 2016 at 10:23am PST

Strength training – working on my bench 85×5 to start #fitover50 #strong #getglutes #strongcurves #fitmom #strongbybret #liftlikeagirl #bostonstrong #austin @bretcontreras1

A post shared by Caren Kilgore (@ourwarren) on Oct 25, 2016 at 10:27am PDT

Improved my push-up sets this morning – 25 then 15 with a steady pace and consistent form #atlasfit #strongcurves #getglutes #girlsgonestrong #bostonstrong #strong #fitmom #fitover50 #austin #liftlikeagirl @bretcontreras1

A post shared by Caren Kilgore (@ourwarren) on Jul 20, 2016 at 9:22am PDT

High rep banded glute bridges today! Thanks Coach @bretcontreras1 Wearing a classic @thegirlsgonestrong tee #fitmom #fitover50 #boston #bostonstrong #getglutes #girlsgonestrong #strong #strongcurves #liftlikeagirl #beautifulbadass

A post shared by Caren Kilgore (@ourwarren) on Apr 14, 2016 at 9:03am PDT

Iron Therepy! Back to the gym after a tough week. Managed to complete weighted pull-ups with an extra 15 lbs and increased my back ext to plus 25 #fitover50 #fitmom #beyourownsuperhero #boston #bostonstrong #liftlikeagirl #getglutes #girlsgonestrong #strong #strongcurves @bretcontreras1

A post shared by Caren Kilgore (@ourwarren) on Mar 25, 2016 at 6:33am PDT

The post Building Impressive Strength After 50 appeared first on Bret Contreras.

By James Krieger and Bret Contreras

Preface: The idea for this article was sparked last year when James and I presented together in the UK at the Personal Trainer Collective Conference along with Brad Schoenfeld and Alan Aragon. At that time, I had done a ton of research on the genetic differences pertaining to fitness outcomes, but I hadn’t yet seen a lot of data reporting individual differences. James’ presentation was filled with graphs depicting the stark differences in individual results, and it dawned on me that this is probably the most important aspect of science that fails to be reported. We hope that in time it becomes standard practice to report individual data, but in the meantime, we wish to impress upon you that research typically only reports means, which may or may not apply to you.

Consider the following scenarios:

· Your friend swears by high intensity interval training (HIIT) for losing body fat. In addition to increased caloric expenditure from the session, she notices a boost in overall energy throughout the day, which she claims helps her burn even more calories. Yet every time you employ HIIT, you notice that the scale doesn’t move. Moreover, it seems to just make you tired and exhausted, which prevents you from achieving stellar strength training workouts in the gym, thereby sabotaging your efforts to build strength and muscle.

· You read an article saying that deep squats are the absolute best thing you can do to build your legs and hips. But every time you perform them, your hips and low back are beat to smithereens and you can’t train legs again for another 10 days. The persistent pain you experience prevents you from using your muscles to their fullest potential.

· Your training partner says steady-state cardio makes her hungry. She notes that she has a harder time adhering to her diet when she does cardio compared to when she omits it altogether. You, on the other hand, consistently lose your appetite after a cardio bout. Cardio therefore seems to help you create an even greater energy deficit.

· At the gym, you overhear a bro bragging that all he has to do to build his pecs is a few sets of push-ups close to failure each week and he grows like crazy. You can’t seem to get anywhere unless you’re doing 15-20 sets of various pec exercises per week, though. He claims that your workout is overkill and creates too much damage and soreness, but you recover just fine from your routine.

How can we know who is right? Maybe everyone is.

Often we like to turn to research to tell us how to structure our diet and training programs, and studies certainly can act as guidelines or starting points. We must remember, however, that in general, research reports averages. Individual responses to exercise and diet can vary dramatically from one person to the next; averages don’t provide us with this information.

In this article, we’re going to delve into some critically important yet seldom discussed considerations in evidence-based fitness programming.

To Cardio or Not to Cardio for Body Composition Improvements?

Although there are numerous “non-responders” to aerobics training, meaning that they cannot improve their aerobic capacity, insulin sensitivity, or blood pressure through cardio (see HERE), this section deals more specifically with those who train primarily for aesthetics. Let’s say you are considering adding cardio to your fat loss program. You’d ideally want to consider a number of factors, including but not limited to the effect of cardio on your:

· Appetite and food intake

· Daily energy levels and non-exercise activity

· Sleep quantity and quality

· Resistance training focus (i.e., Does it interfere with your ability to train progressively and set personal records?)

· Willpower throughout the rest of your day (i.e., Do you lose discipline in other components of your training and diet?)

Let’s take a closer look at some of these elements.

Cardio and Appetite

At first glance, cardio does not appear to have much of an impact on appetite or calorie intake (see HERE for a recent meta-analysis). However, this doesn’t tell us the whole story. Take a look at THIS study where researchers looked at people’s calorie intake responses to a 50-min low-intensity cardio session at 50% of max heart rate. The researchers looked at the compensatory response to the exercise session. In other words, if you burned 100 calories in a workout, would you then make up for it by consuming 100 calories later?

The following graph shows the variation in compensatory eating from one subject to the next. The solid line indicates where calorie intake was equal for the exercise and no-exercise conditions, meaning there was no compensation at all (i.e., the subjects did not eat food to make up for the calories burned in the exercise session). The dashed line indicates where the subjects perfectly compensated for the calories burned during exercise (e.g., if they burned 100 calories, they ate 100 calories). Thus, subjects between the solid and dashed line showed only some compensation (e.g., burning 100 calories but eating 50), while subjects at or above the dashed line showed perfect or overcompensation (meaning they ate more than they burned in the exercise session).

Look at the wide variation in responses.

A couple of people ended up with 300-600 calorie deficits after the exercise session, yet several people ended up with 300-600 calorie surpluses! The former group saw amplified results on account of their decreased caloric intake following the cardio session, whereas the latter group sabotaged their fat loss efforts by consuming more calories than they burned during the cardio session.

How does this apply to you? Are you a person who feels extremely hungry after low-intensity cardio? Then perhaps it’s not for you. Or maybe you’re a person who doesn’t get hungry, or even loses appetite, in response to low-intensity cardio. If that’s the case, low-intensity cardio might be a good way to help you establish an energy deficit to lose fat.

It’s been shown HERE that people who tend to compensate for exercise by eating more are people who have a preference for high-fat, sweet foods; these individuals have a very high hedonic, or pleasure, response to these foods. So, if you’re a person who really loves cake, ice cream, and so on, and tend to have a weakness for these foods, then low-intensity cardio might stimulate your appetite. In your case, then, you can try things like interval training (some research suggests it may suppress appetite, although the data is not consistent), or skip cardio altogether.

Cardio and NEAT

Let’s take a look at the impact of structured exercise on Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT). NEAT refers to all of your physical activity throughout the day that does not include formal planned exercise – everything from fidgeting to walking to your car to maintenance of posture to moving your mouth. NEAT plays a powerful role in weight regulation and is just as important as exercise when it comes to energy expenditure. Now, what happens to NEAT when you embark on a structured exercise program? Well, according to THIS study, the answer is, “it depends”.

The researchers had 34 women engage in a 13-week brisk walking program. Some women experienced an increase in physical activity energy expenditure, yet others experienced a decrease! How could this be? It’s because some of the women compensated for the exercise by decreasing their NEAT levels. Perhaps the exercise made them tired, or maybe they thought that, since they exercised that day, they were free to sit around the rest of the day. Whatever the reason, each subject responded differently to the exercise program in terms of NEAT levels.

Below is a chart showing the differences in physical activity energy expenditure between the women who didn’t reduce NEAT and the women who did.

You can see how low the physical activity energy expenditure was for the women that reduced NEAT compared to the women that didn’t, especially on the non-exercise days. These women became so sedentary the rest of the day that their inactivity more than negated the benefits of the exercise. Other women responded positively to the exercise and experienced an increase in energy expenditure. Again, we have dramatic differences in how individuals respond.

How does this apply to you? Do you feel so exhausted after a cardio session that you sit around the rest of the day? If that’s the case, the cardio may be doing you more harm than good because it’s reducing your NEAT. But if you feel energized and active, then the cardio is likely an effective fat loss tool for you. Again, it’s how you respond individually, something the research can’t always tell you.

Cardio and Sleep

Exercise tends to be good for sleep. See HERE for a recent meta-analysis. It can even help insomniacs (see HERE). However, some individuals experience exercise-induced sleep problems. In fact, according to THIS study, 53.9% of 256 college students felt that strenuous physical activity extremely negatively impacted their sleep. There’s a large genetic component to the sleep-wake cycle and its disorders (see HERE), indicating that some individuals are more predisposed to exercise-related sleep issues than others. A recent meta-analysis (see HERE) found that elite athletes experience a high overall prevalence of insomnia symptoms including longer sleep latencies, greater sleep fragmentation, non-restorative sleep, and excessive daytime fatigue, and these patterns are worse on training days compared to non-training days. Many find that sleep disturbances tend to be worse with physical activity performed with greater intensity and in closer proximity to bedtime.

How does this apply to you? If you find that cardio seems to improve your sleep, then you should indeed consider regularly performing cardio, especially considering that sleep and muscle mass are positively related according to THIS study. However, if you instead find that cardio interferes with your sleep, then you should consider omitting it altogether, especially given that diminished sleep duration and quality are linked to obesity, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and mortality (see HERE).

Cardio and Progressive Resistance Training

The interference effect associated with cardio and strength training was first established in 1980 in THIS study. Since that time, we’ve learned a great deal about the molecular mechanisms and training variables responsible for the interference. A little cardio isn’t going to kill your gains. Up to a point, strength and endurance increase concomitantly. However, when endurance training is carried out frequently enough, with sufficient intensity, for a prolonged enough duration, it will indeed interfere with strength, hypertrophy, and power adaptations.

But this subsection isn’t about the interference effect per se. What we want you to consider is whether or not you tend to give your resistance training your all if you did cardio that morning or if you know you have to do cardio later in the evening. Consistently gaining strength and setting PRs is very challenging. It requires tremendous focus, grit, and determination. One study showed that challenging cognitive tasks impaired subsequent push-up and sit-up performance (see HERE). Sure, cardio isn’t a mental task, but THIS paper suggests that anything and everything can impact physical performance. Sometimes cardio can distract you from making meaningful strength gains in the gym, and the weight room is better suited than cardio at helping you transform your physique.

How does this apply to you? If you’ve noticed that cardio negatively affects your strength training performance, you could try lower intensity cardio such as brisk walking, making sure to spread the sessions out as much as possible during the day. You could alternatively omit cardio altogether and save your physical and mental energy for the gym. But if you find that cardio doesn’t impact your ability to focus on your strength training sessions, then by all means, feel free to employ some cardio. After all, most pro bodybuilders do cardio and it’s obviously not hampering their gains.

Cardio and Ego Depletion

According to some research, willpower is a finite resource that gradually drains and replenishes itself throughout the day and night. When faced with stressful tasks, people use up their willpower and tend to exhibit less self-control later in the day. This is known as “ego depletion,” and it’s the subject of a good number of experiments in the literature.

For example, exerting self-control causes people to consume more food, but there are many factors that appear to influence the relationship between ego depletion and food intake, including BMI (see HERE), confidence surrounding one’s ability to regulate weight (see HERE), and impulsivity (see HERE). Furthermore, some individuals are much more sensitive to the effects of ego depletion than others, according to THIS study.

How does this apply to you? Let’s say that you’re a morning person, you enjoy running in general, you love being outside, you have a nice running trail that starts a block away from your house, and working up a nice sweat before your work day starts makes you feel confident and productive. In this case, you seem like a good candidate for cardio. On the other hand, let’s say you cringe every single morning at the thought of performing your cardio (there’s a strong genetic component to enjoying exercise according to THIS, THIS, and THIS paper), you have to drive 40 minutes to get to your gym where you do your cardio, and you loathe driving in rush hour traffic. In this case, it is very likely that stubbornly sticking to your morning cardio regimen would deplete your self-control and cause you to exert less willpower later in the day. This could result in greater caloric consumption and possibly greater indulgence of junk foods, which would sabotage your attempts to become leaner and healthier. If the latter scenario describes you, it is likely that you’ll see better results by omitting cardio altogether. Sometimes simpler is better.

Resistance Training and Strength & Hypertrophy

There’s a lot of variability in how much muscle you gain in response to a particular training program. Check out a chart from THIS study. It shows the percent change in muscle physiological cross sectional area of the quadriceps. Fifty-three previously untrained subjects performed 4 sets of 10 rep leg extensions with 80% of 1RM and 2-minute rest periods between sets 3 times per week for 9 straight weeks. We would assume that each subject would gain substantial levels of strength and muscle during this time period, right?

The bar on the far right shows the average increase in muscle, which is around 5%. But look at the tremendous variation between individuals. The changes ranged from a -2.5% to a nearly 20% change in muscle size. While most people experienced an increase, five of the subjects actually lost muscle. Interestingly, genetic predispositions to hypertrophy are muscle-specific, meaning that you can likely grow certain muscles quite easily while others seemingly refuse to grow (see HERE). This is evident when you consider THIS study which examined 45 men and found that one man had 484% (almost 5X) more glute volume than another man.

Changes in strength also show marked variation from one person to the next. Check out the individual results of THIS study which examined concurrent training, that is, training strength and endurance at the same time.

This graph represents the isometric leg press force gained over a 21-week period of training. One subject got 12% weaker, while another subject got 87% stronger! How in the world does an untrained individual get weaker after strength training twice per week for roughly 4 months? Nevertheless, this study also showed that the high responders in terms of aerobic capacity were not high responders in maximal strength. Another study showed that high responders to strength training can gain markedly more strength performing 2 weekly sets of squats per week than medium and lower responders can from performing 8-16 sets of squats per week (see HERE).

These dramatic patterns of strength and hypertrophy responses are very predictable in the literature as they have been replicated in numerous studies. Some folks can gain strength or muscle quite easily while others cannot (see HERE). Interestingly, however, those who gain the most strength aren’t always the same individuals who gain the most muscle and vice versa. There’s a large genetic component to this phenomenon, and we know that muscle growth has much to do with how your satellite cell system functions and how much growth factors you produce (see HERE). Hell, according to THIS study, testosterone levels of male Olympic athletes range from 58 ng/dL to 1154 ng/dL (average is 420 ng/dL), and in females the range is from 0 ng/dL to 923 ng/dL (average is 78 ng/dL).

Individualization of Program Design

All of this information indicates that you need to consider how you respond individually to changes in training and diet in order to determine your optimal program design. You can use science to give you an idea of where to start, but ultimately it takes individual experimentation to learn what is going to work for you.

For example, let’s say you are designing your resistance training program. You need to think about how you respond as an individual to factors such as:

· Volume

· Frequency

· Load

· Effort

· Exercise selection

Consider volume, for example. THIS very recent meta-analysis on volume and hypertrophy indicated that, for optimal hypertrophy, you should do 10 or more sets per muscle group per week. However, once again, this is based on averages. For example, 15 weekly sets might work great for your training partner, but you find that anything more than 8 and you get nothing but sore joints. The type of exercise also matters; 10 weekly sets of leg extensions is not the same as 10 weekly sets of squats. Moreover, due to genetic variation, some individuals gain more lower body strength with a single set compared to multiple sets (see HERE).

Anatomical Joint Range of Motion

Your anatomy can impact exercise selection. Many exercises require a good deal of joint range of motion in order to be executed properly. If your skeletal structure does not allow your joints to move through the range of motion that a particular exercise requires, then you will not be able to properly perform that exercise.

Think of the hip joint. Many popular knee dominant exercises necessitate sound levels of hip flexion mobility in order to carry out properly. For example, the deep squat, leg press, high step up, and pistol squat each appear to involve at least 120 degrees of hip flexion at the bottom of the movement. Once your hips run out of range of motion, if you continue going deeper, you can only do so by posteriorly tilting your pelvis and flexing your lumbar spine (this is commonly known as “butt wink”). While some butt wink is acceptable, too much is dangerous and likely to lead to hip and low back issues.

Take a look at the table below from THIS study.

The researchers examined the hip flexion mobility of 200 subjects. There was a 60 degree difference in mobility between the least and most flexible individuals. The least flexible person could only attain 80 degrees of hip flexion, whereas the most flexible person could reach 140 degrees. The former person couldn’t even squat to parallel without butt winking, whereas the latter individual could squat rock bottom with no problems.

How does this apply to you? If you have good mobility, then you can likely perform most exercises with textbook mechanics, which is excellent because greater range of motion is typically shown in the research to lead to superior hypertrophic outcomes. However, if you possess grossly inferior mobility, then you will likely get beat up from exercises that take those joints into a deep stretch. In addition to the aforementioned exercises, this could apply to dips, dumbbell bench press, push ups off of handles, flies, stiff leg deadlifts, good mornings, and more.

While it is obvious that these exercises can easily be modified in order to suit an individual’s anatomy (just go as deep as your body comfortably allows), most people who are lacking in mobility tend to go deeper than they should in an attempt to make their range of motion appear more normal, and this leads to problems at the shoulders, hips, and low back. If this accumulates and leads to nagging pain, it will prevent you from achieving optimal hypertrophy since pain inhibits muscle activation.

Genetic Propensity to Muscle Damage

Your physiology can also influence exercise selection, in addition to volume and frequency. Some individuals experience greater muscle damage than others due to genetics and therefore require more recovery time in order to repair the damage (see HERE). Moreover, some individuals are much more susceptible to experiencing tendon and ligament injuries (see HERE, HERE, and HERE).

How does this apply to you? Some people can bust out 5 sets of squats, deadlifts, and lunges and feel fine the following day, while others are crippled for several days following the same workout. If you’re the type that doesn’t get overly sore and recovers quickly, then you can train with more volume and frequency than others and you don’t have to give much thought to exercise selection. However, if you experience tremendous soreness from common workouts and seem to take forever to recover, then you can either 1) train less frequently (not ideal in our opinion), 2) train with less volume, 3) train with less effort, and/or 4) select exercises that don’t create as much soreness (exercises that stress the stretch position such as stiff-legged deadlifts and lunges create more damage than exercises that stress the contracted position such as back extensions and hip thrusts).

Conclusion

Determining how you respond individually to alterations in training and diet are extremely important in establishing the right pathway to achieving your goals. Just because the research suggests that X is beneficial, doesn’t mean that it is beneficial for YOU. Or, just because another person swears by Y, doesn’t mean Y is beneficial for YOU.

The best fat loss program for you may involve cardio – or it may not. The best strength training program for you may involve deadlifts – or it may not. The best hypertrophy program for you may involve training each muscle group 3 days per week – or it may not. Moreover, what is best for you now may not be best for you next month, or next year, or in the next decade.

There are so many variables to consider, and science is only just beginning to examine how individuals respond to these variables. There are strong genetic components to practically every single variable that impacts your ability to gain muscle, lose fat, increase strength, and improve athleticism. You must therefore utilize the scientific method and experiment in order to figure out what works best for you.

The research can guide you on where to start, but only you can determine where you finish.

About James

James Krieger is the founder of Weightology. He has a Master’s degree in Nutrition from the University of Florida and a second Master’s degree in Exercise Science from Washington State University. He is the former research director for a corporate weight management program that treated over 400 people per year, with an average weight loss of 40 pounds in 3 months. His former clients include the founder of Sylvan Learning Centers and The Little Gym, the vice president of Costco, and a former vice president of MSN.

James is a published scientist, author, and speaker in the field of exercise and nutrition. He has published research in prestigious scientific journals, including the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the Journal of Applied Physiology. In his previous lay publication, Weightology Weekly, he wrote over 70 articles per year covering the latest science in a manner that was friendly and easy to understand. James is also the former science editor for Pure Power Magazine, and the former editor for Journal of Pure Power, both publications that delivered scientific, but lay-friendly, information on training and nutrition to athletes and coaches. In addition, James has given over 75 lectures on fitness-related topics to physicians, dietitians, and other professionals, and has been a speaker at major events such as the AFPT Conference and NSCA Personal Training Conference. In fact, James has been involved in the health, nutrition, and fitness field for over 20 years, and has written over 500 articles. He is a strong believer in an evidence-based, scientific approach to body transformation and health.

The post Individual Differences: The Most Important Consideration for Your Fitness Results that Science Doesn’t Tell You appeared first on Bret Contreras.

She approached me approximately 4 months ago inquiring about distance coaching. I don’t like taking on distance clients because in order to do it right, properly training clients over email, Skype, and text messaging is a huge pain in the butt. However, we spoke over the phone, and I could tell that we’d be a great match. She told me that she just finished competing in 4 shows back to back to back to back and was feeling burnt out, that she didn’t like being in the gym lately, that she wanted to increase her glute size, and that she was willing to experiment. This was music to my ears, as I knew that it was a perfect opportunity for me to suggest my preferred method of programming: total body training.

In my experience, it’s very challenging to get people who are accustomed to bodypart splits to make the switch to total body training. Nearly every bodybuilder sticks to bodypart split training, and that’s not an exaggeration; a recent study found that 127 out of 127 surveyed bodybuilders adhered to bodypart split training.

I surmise that the majority of bikini competitors also stick to bodypart split training, along with endless amounts of cardio. My buddy Brad Schoenfeld (aka: The Hypertrophy Specialist) and I used to argue about which type of training is better for hypertrophy, so we conducted a training study examining the effects of volume-matched bodypart split training and total body training. The total body training group outperformed the bodypart split group in hypertrophic measures. Brad clings to the fact that all of the subjects had previously been performing bodypart split training and the effect could be due to novelty, but I think it’s evidence that total body training is superior (but I could be committing confirmation bias). Our paper is the only study to date examining this topic.

For a comprehensive, in-depth, and evidence-based discussion on bodypart split training versus total body training, please listen to episode 3 of The Bret Contreras Podcast: Bodypart Spilts versus Total Body Training.

Prior to training with me, Tawna was lifting weights six days per week, doing additional cardio at least 3 days per week, and training one muscle group per day with high volume and variety. In addition, she wasn’t hell-bent on progressive overload and setting PRs week in and week out. Tawna trains at a badass gym called Destination Dallas (she’s actually engaged to the owner of the gym and is getting married soon).

I convinced her to move to total body training, stick to a periodized approach with new programs each month, omit cardio altogether, and focus on setting PRs week in and week out. Tawna’s training is centered on back squats, sumo deadlifts, hip thrusts, incline press, and weighted chins. Here are some highlights over the past couple of months:

In just a few months, Tawna’s strength has sky-rocketed. She went from doing one bodyweight chin up to 10 bodyweight chin ups and one weighted chin up with 25 additional pounds. She’s now hip thrusting 245 lbs for 8 reps and 275 lbs for 3 reps; she started out with 165 lbs on the hip thrust. She’s busting out 12 feet-elevated inverted rows like it ain’t no thang. She was squatting with 115 lbs and now she’s nailing a below-parallel single with 185 lbs. She was incline pressing with 70 lbs and now she’s using 90 lbs. She started off sumo deadlifting with 95 lbs and now she’s nailing a single with 190 lbs.

She still employs a wide variety of movements, we switch things up slightly each month to spice things up, she’s spending 3 hours in the gym each week instead of 6 hours, she’s no longer feeling burnt out and is loving her training, and she’s fueled by her personal records which keeps her highly motivated to train. She’s also fueled by the physique changes she’s already made.

Check out the picture below – you can see noticeable improvements in a very short time frame. She uses a seatbelt on the Gluteator machine and it no longer functions properly as her waist is too small to get buckled in. She had to get her wedding dress altered – they had to take an inch off of nearly every measurement except the glutes, which is exactly what we wanted. This is despite the fact that her scale weight hasn’t changed.

Left: 3 months ago
Right: Recently

More results and more fun in less time? Seems like a no-brainer to me! Hopefully this article and video motivates other women and bikini competitors to engage in similar forms of efficient/effective, progressive strength training.

This has not been a simple accomplishment. I want to give HYOOOGE props to Tawna – she’s followed my advice to a T. She has done everything I’ve asked her to do, she’s never missed a workout, she follows the program to perfection, and she works her butt off. You can see how hard she works in the video – I love the faces she makes. This is the sign of a champion and a true athlete. She takes video clips of each of her exercises and texts them to me every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Yes, I watch all of her videos and make sure she’s using proper form to my liking. I text her back feedback (sometimes in video fashion when it’s easier to explain) and the next week she is sure to implement my advice. Rare are the clients who can accomplish this, but this explains her incredible results.

She might compete in a powerlifting competition in July and I’m hoping she gets the itch to compete in bikini once again toward the end of 2016. It’ll be interesting to see comparisons of on-stage competition photos.

I very much look forward to Tawna’s ongoing results and hope you do too. We’re going to try to make regular YouTube videos but you can follow her on social media here:

Tawna Instagram

Tawna Facebook

Tawna Twitter

Tawna YouTube

Destination Dallas Facebook

Destination Dallas Instagram

Better Bodies Facebook

Better Bodies Instagram

The post The Physical Effects of Progressive Strength Training: A Case Study With Tawna Eubanks appeared first on Bret Contreras.

After two decades of screwing up in my own training, learning from my personal training clients, and extensively studying biomechanics, I was forced to realize how important it is to tailor the training to the individual. If you can learn this at a younger training age than me, it will save you from numerous instances of frustration and set backs.

Primer on Training Volume

If you want to maximize your neuromuscular gains, then you want to optimize your training volume. The first set of an exercise is by far the most important. Probably 70-80% of your gains come from the first set, with each subsequent set providing decreasing additional anabolic stimuli. The law of diminishing returns definitely applies to training volume, as there’s a point where more volume will make you weaker by preventing recovery – or worse, causing pain or injury. Volume is indeed an important factor related to strength and hypertrophic improvements, but increasing volume won’t help you with any of your goals if it causes you to spin your wheels due to joint irritation and pain.

Experts aren’t in agreement with optimal volume recommendations, and even if they were, interindividual variation would require you to tinker and experiment to figure out what works best for you. Some advise to perform the minimum effective dose possible that elicits a training effect and leads to increased performance, while others advise to perform the maximum volume that still allows the individual to stay psychologically motivated, pain/injury-free, and able to recover. Volume can and should fluctuate over time according to planned periodization or unplanned autoregulation based on biofeedback. The optimal volume for you depends on numerous factors, including (but not limited to): total program volume, total volume per muscle group and per movement pattern, skeletal anatomy, mobility, genetic soft-tissue strength, exercise technique, exercise variation, added conditioning/cardio, nutrition, supplementation, sleep, stress, age, training age, and strength levels.

Individual Squat Differences

Let’s just consider the squat. If you have limited ankle dorsiflexion mobility, you’re going to lean forward to a greater degree, thereby placing more stress on the low back (unless you wear weightlifting shoes). Similarly, if you have relatively long femurs, you’re going to lean forward to a greater degree, thereby placing more stress on the low back. If you have relatively big quads, especially if coupled with good ankle mobility and/or relatively short femurs, you will use them to a proportionately greater degree, and this places more stress on the knee joints. If you have limited hip flexion mobility, you will excessively buttwink (posteriorly tilt the pelvis, which is often accompanied by lumbar flexion) if attempting a deep squat, and this places increased stress on the low back. Limited hip flexion mobility also places greater stress on the hip joints. If you have poor shoulder external rotation mobility, performing low bar squats will likely irritate your shoulder joints.

If you are lucky enough to have a robust spine and set of knees/hips, then you will be able to tolerate much greater forces and loads. However, if the interaction between your uniquely shaped skeleton and uniquely strengthed soft-tissue structures under movement and load causes your bones, intervertebral discs, knee menisci, hip labrums, or various ligaments, tendons, and muscles to excessively rub, compress, stretch/strain, bend, or shear, then you’re inevitably going to experience problems over time if you don’t manage your volume.

While it’s true that much of these issues can be mitigated by using good technique, sound mechanics doesn’t always safeguard the individual from injury and pain/discomfort. For example, muscular contractions produce joint force, and if you’re compression intolerant at a particular joint, there’s no way around producing compressive forces when performing exercises that stress the particular muscle group that causes the joint discomfort. In addition to technique and volume, anatomy and genetic soft-tissue strength also play large roles in determining your tolerance capacity to an exercise. We only discussed the squat above, but the same principles hold true for deadlifts, hip thrusts, bench presses, chins, dips, military presses, and more.

Modifying Your Program

Many of you have coaches or stick to popular training programs. While your current program might be very effective for one individual, it may be far from ideal for you. However, you can usually modify the program to suit you perfectly and allow you to make consistent gains over time, but it requires experimentation.

I’m going to provide you with some personal anecdotes. Of course, you are anatomically and physiologically different than me, so you need to figure out your optimal training protocol. But let me tell you what I’ve discovered over time just to get the wheels turning in your mind and spark some thought as it pertains to your programming.

Squats

Surprisingly, squats rarely, if ever, hurt my back. Actually, I can recall hurting my back 18 years ago with squats but that’s it. I wish I could squat 5 times per week with massive volume, but this aggravates my knees. A couple of times throughout my training career, squats induced hip pain when I went overboard on the frequency, and come to think of it, frequent low bar squatting irritates my arms more than anything (which sabotages my bench press).

Squatting one day per week doesn’t allow me to gain much strength, therefore, when I’m feeling healthy, I squat 3 times per week with 3 working sets per session for a total of 9 weekly sets. I have some clients who can handle 16 hard sets per week, others who can only well-tolerate 4 sets per week, and I’ve trained a few people who I decided were better off omitting heavy squats altogether (but they still did goblet squats), as every time they started reaching new levels of strength, they’d injure themselves even when using seemingly good form.

Deadlifts

I wish I could deadlift with massive volume too, but my back gets stiff and all of my lower body training goes south when this happens. I seem to do best pulling heavy for 1-2 all-out sets once per week and including a lighter day for 3-4 sets (on the lighter day I don’t rep to failure; I just go light and focus on form). I used to be able to handle 2 heavy deadlift sessions per week, but not anymore.

Lately I’ve been doing heavy good mornings in place of lighter deadlifts and this seems to be panning out very well (1 good morning session per week and 1 deadlift session per week). Just as in the case of the squat, I’ve seen a large variance with what people can handle in the deadlift. I’ve trained some people who could pull heavy with 8 sets per week, some who were like me and did best with around 5 sets per week, and others who couldn’t deadlift heavy at all since they’d inevitably end up hurting themselves when they started reaching new levels of strength (but they still did swings and speed banded deadlifts).

Bench Presses

I seem to build my bench press best by benching 2-3 times per week. I’ve tried benching 5 days per week and it always results in stagnation due to arm and shoulder pain. Right now, 2 flat bench and 1 incline press session seem to be ideal, with 3-4 sets per session. I’m able to sprinkle in some military press as well with no problem as long as I don’t bench press every day. I’ve trained clients who could tolerate 18 hard sets of bench press per week, others like me who did best with 6-12 sets per week, and some who simply couldn’t bench long-term without experiencing issues.

Hip Thrusts

When I was weaker at hip thrusts (using 405-495 lbs for my sets), they never bothered my knees, but now that I can thrust 585+ lbs for reps, they irritate my knees if I do them frequently. Specifically, they cause my quadriceps tendons to act up. Therefore, I do them heavy one day per week and light (either band hip thrusts, double band hip thrusts with a band around the knees and a band around the hips, or with light barbell load for high reps and constant tension) another day per week.

Weighted Chins and Dips

Weighted chins and dips were always favorites of mine, but I had to exclude them from my programming for 2 years because they became problematic and caused injuries and pain. I’ve recently reintroduced both of them into my training and can handle them just fine as long as I just hit them just once per week with 2 working sets. I know if I got greedy and started hitting them 2-3 times per week with 3-4 sets, I’d backtrack and start developing arm pain and teres minor issues from the chins and anterior shoulder pain from the dips. I’m even careful with bodyweight chins and dips as they still pack a punch when you weigh 225+ lbs like me. I’ve found that underhand grip lat pulldowns and plate-loaded dips transfer to my chin and dip strength without stressing my body as severely.

Lateral Raises

I wanted to mention a single joint exercise here as I feel it’s an important anecdote. Lateral raises used to irritate my elbows and arms if I did them too often or for too many sets. However, I used to work my way up to 50 lbs. Upon learning more about biomechanics, I realized that I was bending my arms when I went heavier, thereby reducing the lever arm length. Since torque on the joint is equal to the load multiplied by the lever arm distance, I realized that I could go lighter but keep my arms straighter and still achieve a similar training effect. If I used just 25 lb dumbbells and paused at the top and then lowered the load slowly (I don’t think I ever controlled the eccentric phase of a lateral raise in my entire lifting career before this realization), I could pack a hypertrophic stimulating punch without irritating my arms or elbows. This infers that technique and cadence can be altered to augment loads and stresses on the body.

Variations

Along similar lines, here’s why it’s important to possess a large toolbox of exercises. Many individuals find that a certain exercise variation is problematic for them, but they can perform another variation just fine. For example, some do well with conventional deadlifts versus sumo deadlifts or vice versa. Or block pulls or trap bar deadlifts. Some people do well with front squats versus back squats or vice versa. Or high box squats. Some do better with barbell glute bridges compared to hip thrusts. Some do better with close grip bench or floor press as opposed to bench press. Experiment to figure out the best variations for you.

Well-Tolerated Exercises and “Penalty-Free Volume”

There are indeed exercises that I seem to able to perform with unlimited volume. These movements simply agree well with my body. I freakin’ love these exercises, as they provide what I call “penalty-free volume.” I can bust out back extensions, frog pumps, lateral band walks, push ups, inverted rows, chest supported rows, seated rows, rear delt raises, hammer curls, band tricep extensions, and leg curls frequently with higher volume without experiencing any issues.

I always make sure to perform plenty of sets of these throughout the week as they positively impact hypertrophy without impairing my ability to gain strength on squats, deadlifts, bench press, and more. In this manner, they’re synergistic as hypertrophy is good for strength (but the relationship is far from linear).

I’ve always felt that this was a wise strategy as I don’t believe that lifters should try to tease out all of their hypertrophic gains with just one exercise for a particular bodypart. For example, squats are great for vastis (quad) development, but they don’t maximize rectus femoris hypertrophy (leg extensions are better for this), and there’s only so much volume one can handle with squats due to their loading on the low back. Supplementing with lunges, leg extensions, or another quad exercise is a great idea whether the goal is physique or strength related. Moreover, many compound exercises fail to optimally stimulate all the regions of a muscle. For example, squats don’t adequately target the upper gluteus maximus fibers, so hip thrusts and lateral hip abduction movements are useful in maximizing glute development. In short, variety is good!

Submaximal Volume

It is indeed true that people can do much higher volume if they use submaximal loads and avoid going close to failure – and this is certainly a possibility with your training. However, if you’re like me, then you grew up thinking that only the last couple of reps mattered (this isn’t accurate) and that training to failure was necessary (it’s not). If this is the case, it’s likely hard for you to just perform moderate effort work while still feeling productive.

Chances are, you’re probably a little bit like me and you don’t feel productive unless you push a majority of your sets to failure or close to failure during the training session. If so, I recommend relaxing your stance on this and performing many sets per week in the moderate range in terms of effort by leaving a few reps on the table. To reiterate, you should not go to failure on all of your sets throughout the week. Depending on your program design, maybe 25-50% of your sets should be carried out close to failure, with 50-75% staying far away from it. You can compensate for the reduced effort by using more strict form.

Your Turn 

Now that I’ve informed you about my training discoveries related to volume and exercise performance, it’s your turn to figure out what works best for you. Start paying closer attention to your program design and make sure you’re selecting the best exercises for your goals and performing the ideal amount of volume for your body. Don’t just stick to a cookie-cutter routine if it doesn’t feel right. Modify sets and reps, exercise technique, and exercise variation according to your individual tolerance capacity. As I’ve said many times before:

No exercise is worth doing if it repeatedly causes pain or injury.

My training morphs over time, and so will yours. There will be times when you can hammer it out for weeks on end, and there will be times where you have to back off and avoid certain movements. This comes with the territory, so learn how to train around issues and still be productive.

Conclusion

I hope this article has given you some food for thought. Perhaps your skeletal structure and soft-tissue strength allow you to do whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want. But chances are, especially as you get stronger, you’re going to have to learn how to modify your training by reducing volume on potentially problematic exercises, increasing volume on well-tolerated exercises, selecting the best exercises for the job, and possibly omitting exercises that don’t agree with your body.

The post Pimping Your Program Design appeared first on Bret Contreras.

Robert A. Panariello MS, PT, ATC, CSCS
Professional Physical Therapy
Professional Athletic Performance Center
New York, New York

Throughout my career as a Physical Therapist (PT), Certified Athletic Trainer (ATC), and Strength and Conditioning (S&C) Coach I have been witness to many trends that have transpired upon these related professions. The evolution of the internet has been a significant venue for the conveyance of these trends with much of this information comprising assorted material of pertinent substance, some without; nonetheless the internet has offered many professionals their own claim of “notoriety” and in some instances financial gain. I am personally not opposed to capitalism as I am in private business myself. Like many others I also acknowledge various practitioners who evolve as “experts” in their professional field of choice and have mentors whom I very much respect. Presently there is an abundant amount of information and products available to the practicing professional where as the boundaries for the specific application of some of this information is often clouded if not altogether disregarded.

Performance Enhancement Training Trends

One current training trend appears to be the application of the principles of Sports Rehabilitation (SR) into the S&C setting. Certainly there is an “overlap” so to speak with regard to these two professions, however, it should be noted that these are two distinctly different professions. The application of various SR principles as related to the practice of S&C although practicable at times is becoming alarmingly close to providing a disservice to the training athlete.

Rehabilitation concerns often articulated include the “dreaded” type III acromion, upper trap dominance, the deep squat, disregarding bi-lateral leg exercises, the reluctance to utilize heavy weight intensities, and the list goes on and on. When pathology, anatomical abnormality or medical concerns are present; wouldn’t communication between the rehabilitation and S&C professionals take place to design a training program with all pertinent modifications? When these concerns are NOT present why is there still the intention to train the athlete as if they do exist? Is this due to the rehabilitation principles publicized for the training environment? In the S&C environment is optimal athletic performance as well as the prevention of athletic injuries best achieved with the application of rehabilitation principles or by optimally enhancing the physical qualities required for the sport of participation?

As an example the concern of the previously mentioned type III acromion appears to be commonly communicated. Is the expectation to x-ray every athlete training to confirm if the type III acromion morphology exists? Type III acromion morphology is substantiated to be present in the minority when compared to the type I and II. This evidence is often overlooked thus is the intent to have the minority manipulate the majority and prohibit overhead exercise performance? During my recent trip to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to visit with my good friend Head Basketball S&C Coach Jonas Sahratian, some of his players demonstrated split jerking 100 – 100+ Kg of weight intensity overhead. These players had no complaint of shoulder, back, hip or knee pain, and demonstrated no limitations in range of motion (ROM), strength, neuro-muscular timing, or any other often stated clinical rehabilitation concerns. These basketball athletes lifted weights overhead for enhanced athletic/basketball performance as well as to survive the physical confrontations that occur under the boards during repetitive practice days and game day competition. Is there as much publically stated concern for the weaker athlete situated against a stronger opponent in the confined area under the boards? Isn’t it possible that these dominated weaker athletes are placed at risk of injury?

Why is it necessary to perform an abundant number of rotator cuff exercises when this muscle group is confirmed to be strong, neuro-muscular timing is appropriate and research attests this small muscle group has an active role during the execution of many upper body exercises? Why is there failure to mention the documented consequences due to excessive rotator cuff fatigue that transpires due to unwarranted exercise performance? When no deficiency in muscle activity nor neuro-muscular timing is noted during a pain-free technically proficient exercise execution, why is it necessary to “activate the muscles” prior to the actual exercise performance? Isn’t the most precise muscle “activation” for a specific activity an appropriately executed progression of the actual activity? This is not to imply that a warm-up isn’t warranted, however, if an athlete desires to become a better baseball pitcher wouldn’t they practice pitching? To become an improved golfer wouldn’t they golf? Therefore to become a better back squatter wouldn’t they actually have to back squat? Doesn’t form follow function? If this were not true why is practice necessary? Why not workout and just play the game?

The deep squat results in various joint(s) stresses that all professionals should be aware as isn’t this knowledge (science) required for prudent training? Investigations have established the deeper knee bend positions demonstrate the greatest lower extremity muscle activity, thus without the presence of a contra-indication why would an athlete not assume the most beneficial position during the exercise performance? If the deep knee bend position is so detrimental to the athlete why are there no noted medical community demands for the abolishment of the catcher’s position in the game of baseball?

Why is there such concern with appropriately programmed heavy weight intensities? Is it because these weight intensities exceed those utilized in the rehabilitation setting? It is documented that game day competition and practice days are the environments where the highest incidence of athletic injuries occur as weight room injuries have been noted to occur at a rate of less than 1%. There are circumstances where specific exercises and heavy weight intensities may be appropriately prohibited from the athlete’s training program design. However there are also instances at the time rehabilitation is completed and all contra-indications are resolved, yet an apprehension continues to exist with regard to these same exercises and weight intensities. Isn’t this suitable programming necessary to prepare the athlete for the stresses of repetitive team practice, game day competition and the physical confrontation of an opponent? Why on occasion does there appear to be less concern with returning the athlete to the field of competition, the initial cause of the athlete’s problem? When appropriate exercises and weight intensities are deemed prohibitive isn’t it fair to inquire if they are truly contra-indicated or are the principles of rehabilitation for a pathology which no longer exists continually being applied?

Most professionals would agree that not every exercise, principle, and application of heavy weight intensity is appropriate for every individual. However, isn’t the athlete’s exercise selection and training programming part of the “art” of both SR and S&C? Why is the “art and science” of coaching often ignored by the reader of an article or the attendee of a conference at the time the rehabilitation based questions of “what about this, what about that” arise? Is this due to the clinical rehabilitation information that is delivered via various public forums? If abnormalities and medical conditions are acknowledged why is it assumed they will not be properly addressed during training?

They are Different Professions

Ask yourself why do the majority if not all Professional Sport Teams, Colleges, and Universities have both an Athletic Training Medical Staff and an S&C Staff? Why are there two distinct departments? In most circumstances would the Athletic Training Staff be designated to Athletic Performance Enhancement Train an individual or team for a Championship? Would the S&C Staff be appointed to rehabilitate a post-operative World Class athlete or any athlete from day one? Why not just employ ONE of these professional staffs to both rehabilitate and train all athletes? Imagine all the money saved by eliminating an entire professional staff/department. This does not occur because these are two distinctly different and respected professions. This statement is not intended to be disparaging as I respect and practice both in my vocation. Many of the concerns and principles deemed appropriate and utilized in one profession may not be a concern or appropriate for utilization in another. There are certainly professionals qualified to practice both, however this is the exception and not the rule. In our 44 Orthopedic and Sports Physical Therapy clinics as well as our 20,000 square foot Athletic Performance Training Center we accept more than 180 physical therapy, physical therapy assistant, athletic training, and S&C student interns annually. In review of the curriculums of these student interns it is substantiated that they are quite different in both educational content and clinical requirements.

My good friend Hall of Fame NFL S&C Coach Johnny Parker told me a story about a former NFL Assistant and Head Coach whom I am familiar named Al Groh. Coach Groh was an assistant on Head Coach Bill Parcells coaching staff with the NFL New York Giants, New England Patriots, and New York Jets. These teams were persistently in the playoffs winning Super Bowls and Championship games. These three organizations had one thing in common; they were all not very successful prior to the arrival of Coach Parcell’s and his staff. This coaching staff was not elaborate and avoided the trends and hearsay of the “outsiders”. They just applied the fundamentals specific to the game of football and worked very hard. On one occasion Coach Groh turned to Coach Parker and stated, “You know JP I think I have this thing figured out. Get the team organized, get them disciplined, get the team in condition, have a plan, follow that plan and let the losers eliminate themselves”. During my 10 years as the Head S&C Coach at St. John’s University Hall of Fame Basketball Coach Lou Carnesecca had the same ”no outside nonsense” and work hard philosophy. Coach Carnesecca won 640 basketball games during his coaching career.

Rehabilitation and S&C Coaches are well respected professionals that are vital to the athlete’s and team’s success. Although there is overlap between these two professions, these are two distinctly unique vocations requiring very different knowledge and skill sets. Every athlete in training should be treated as an individual and the S&C Professional has a choice to incorporate an S&C philosophy or a rehabilitation philosophy. The performance training road paved will eventually be one of success or one of consequences as with athleticism and skill being similar it is the stronger and more powerful athlete that will usually prevail. The terms “Rehabilitation” and “Strength and Conditioning” are not interchangeable and are as different as the principles and skill sets utilized in each respective profession. If this were not true why aren’t these professional staffs/departments interchangeable?

The post Rehabilitation vs. Athletic Performance Enhancement Training: Are we Asking Questions that are Already Answered? appeared first on Bret Contreras.

No Two Hips Are The Same: How Anatomical Variance Can Affect Your Range of Motion
Dean Somerset

We’ve all heard it before: hip structures are different so therefore you have to squat differently than someone next to you. This should be pretty common sense, especially when dealing with as broad of a population as there is in the world. What would be a bang-up fantastic recommendation for one individual may be beyond the realm of possibility for someone else, and still so incredibly rudimentary for another person.

Does this have anything to do with training history, time spent under the bar, or simply tissue health? We know joints deteriorate with age and those deteriorations cause reductions in range of motion, however I have a 72 year old client who can still squat his hamstrings on to his calves, and a 20 year old athletic phenom client who can barely crack parallel. Some of my initial consults squat like a rusty hinge, regardless of whether they’ve exercised a day in their life or not, and similar consults can hit the floor with ease.

Looking even at very elite lifters, some prefer to take a much wider stance during a squat whereas others may get away with an almost parallel and shoulder width squat stance. Some deadlifters prefer conventional whereas others prefer an extremely wide sumo stance. It begs the question of whether there actually is one optimal stance or just what may be optimal for the lifter?

Let’s even look at individual differences in size. Look at a high school football team and you’ll see a huge difference in player physical size and shape, sometimes massively so. These physical differences showcase the simple fact that we’re all different, and this fact continues on to the shapes of our joints and how much and where they can display range of motion.

Looking at simple anatomical variance, there can be a massive difference between individuals in the shape, alignment, positioning, and relative angles of attachment of specific bones and joints, meaning their ability to move will be entirely different than someone who has a different set up.

One basic tenet to understand when it comes to the available range of motion a joint may have is this: You can’t stretch bone into bone without something going wrong. If your joints run out of room and wind up pressing one bone into another, you can’t get more range of motion out of them without causing some trauma to the joint or to neighboring joints. Therefore, the shape and position of your joints will directly dictate when and where you develop this bone to bone contact, and will ultimately be the main limiting factor for the ultimate amount of mobility you can use.

Let’s focus on the hip for this discussion because hips are cool and squats are awesome.

Commonly the femoral neck angle is the most known individual difference. A femoral neck angle is usually classified into 3 categories: coxa valga (a more vertical angle inserting into the pelvis), coxa vara (a more horizontal angle inserting into the pelvis) and what is considered a more “normal” angle of roughly 40-50 degrees. The funny thing is the normal angle occurs with less frequency than the combined angles of coxa vara and valga, meaning it’s somewhat more rare to see.

Not as commonly known is the degree of retroversion or anteversion those femoral necks can make. The shaft of the femur doesn’t just always go straight up and instert into the pelvis with a solid 90 degree alignment. On occasion the neck can be angled forward (femoral head is anterior to the shaft) in a position known as anteversion, or angled backward (femoral head is posterior to the shaft) in a position known as retroversion. Zalawadia et al (2010) showed the variances in femoral neck angles could be as much as 24 degrees between samples, which can be a huge difference when it comes to the ability to move a joint through a range of motion.

Consider someone who has a femoral retroversion will likely have a bone to bone contact sooner in a flexion range of motion compared to someone who has more of an anteversion alignment, and if that difference is 20 degrees or more, that could be the difference between squatting above parallel and sitting your hamstring comfortably on your calves.

We’re not done there, though. The acetabulum itself could have a variety of alignments, all of which could affect the range of motion of the joint and affect the movement capacity of the individual.

The acetabulum could itself be in a position of anteversion or retroversion, and this difference itself could be more than 30 degrees. This means the same shaped acetabulum would give someone who has the most anteverted acetabulum 30 extra degrees of flexion than someone who had the most retroverted acetabulum, but would give them 30 degrees more extension than the anteverted hips.

The shape of the hip socket could also be different too! Some people would have a more flat shaped cup socket, but as Fern & Norton showed, there could be a focal positional change in how the socket is set, and also the shape of the socket itself. Occasionally, someone may have a focal versus global retroversion or anteversion, which makes the hip socket look more like an oval or C-shaped cup.

Throw into the mix the fact that hip sockets can also have varying depths and femoral necks can have varying thicknesses, and you have some significant evidence that ranges of motion through the joint can and will be significantly altered based simply on the genetic gifts of the individual in question. A deep socket with a thick neck is going to limit range of motion much more than a shallow socket with a thin neck ever would. The “cone diameter” is essentially the overall range of motion a ball and socket joint would have given their socket depth and neck thickness.

Now to throw even another monkey wrench into the problem, there’s the simple fact that your left and right hips can be at different angles from each other! Zalawadia (same guy as before) showed that the angle of anteversion or retroversion of the femur could be significantly different from left to right, sometimes more than 20 degrees worth of difference. This means trying to train for symmetry could be inherently wrong, and using parallel stances or symmetric set ups (both feet turned out 20 degrees, etc) could be wrong as well, depending on the individual.

Now I know some people out there are saying that this doesn’t really matter and is just an excuse for people to not squat to their full potential, or that everyone should be able to squat ass to grass. Well, I would say if they have the hips to do so, give it hell and work hard at it. However, if they don’t have the hips for it, they will likely develop some signs of impingement, such as anterior hip pain when squatting or doing anything involving hip flexion.

In significant cases of impingement, the individual could develop cam or pincer lesions on the bones of the femoral neck or acetabulum, respectively. This happens when repeated compression of bone into bone occurs and a callous begins to form. The only way to get rid of this is to not do flexion acitivities and probably surgical removal of the callous with the hope the labrum isn’t damaged. Even then, the outcomes could be more related to the type of hip you have.

Fabricant et al (2015) showed that 37% of asymptomatic individuals had clinically significant markers of impingement related structural changes in their hips, and this number skyrocketed up to 54.8% in athletes. He also found that post op recovery was best in patients with retroversion versus anteversion for removal of pain, recovery of strength and range of motion, and speed at which they restarted their desired activities.

There’s even a link to SI joint pain based on the type of hip set up you have. Morgan et al showed the radiographs of people with a history of SI joint pain had a 33% occurrence of cam impingements and 47% had what would be classified as deep hip sockets. Range of motion restriction at the hip affecting the nearby SI joint? You don’t say.

Now with the variations in hip structure, alignment, size, and position, comes the obvious questions of how much influence does any of this have on squat depth and performance? I’m not aware of any studies that have looked at these characteristics, but I would be open to collaborate on them. From my experience with my own training and working with my clients, I have found those who have a more anteverted positioning tend to have no problems squatting to depth whereas those who have more of a retroverted positioning tend to struggle with depth, but rock out with extension. People with more of a lateral positioning of the acetabulum tend to require a bit of a wider stance than those with a more inferior location, and tend to struggle mightily with their feet closer together.

Similarly, those who have very small cones of motion tend to be incredibly stable and rarely have their hips fatigue, likely meaning they have deeper sockets to help support their weight. If one hip is more anteverted and one is more retroverted, it may be that the individual has to stand in a slightly rotated stance to allow a squat depth to be reached. One foot may have to be turned out slightly compared to the other, which seems to commonly be the right foot.

Now how can you use this information to work in your favour? First, you don’t need to have multiple radiographs of your hips to figure out what alignment you’re dealing with or what positions would work best for your squat or hip hinge. There are some active tests you can do that are simple and very indicative, plus very practically useful for helping to determine optimal squat stance and positioning.

1. Supported Squat

This is a simple way to determine what your best squat depth can be. Using a solid object that isn’t going to move, and ideally within sight of a mirror so you can see whether your low back is rounding or whether your hips are going through a posterior tilt, squat down as low as possible using the support for balance. Find a position where you are as deep as possible without letting your low back round. If you get to a point where your back rounds, that’s essentially the limit of your hip flexion in that position, and going further produces the dreaded butt wink.

While at the bottom, open your feet to a slightly wider position and see if you can get lower into the squat than before, then turn one foot out and in and see what happens. Narrow your stance and repeat, but concentrate on which position gives you the best depth without flexing the lumbar spine or creating pain in the front of the hip. If you can’t squat because of hip pain, get that addressed first.

Once in a position where you achieve your deepest squat, find a way to maintain a vertical posture while slowly letting go of the support, and then stand up without assistance. Use the support to lower back into the same squat position and repeat, then lower into the squat without assistance. The movement should feel fluid and easy, without obvious strain or tightness preventing you from getting to the bottom position.

You may only be able to get to 90 degrees of hip flexion with your thighs parallel to the floor, and that’s okay. You might be able to squat so low your hamstrings are pressing into your calves, and that’s okay. There’s no right or wrong, just looking at your individual abilities.

If you have the ability to squat to the floor, working on hip mobility drills and squat accessory movements is pretty much a waste of time. You’re there, and you can get there at the drop of a hat. They’re good to use as a warm up, but you won’t gain any more mobility from them. Likewise, if you can only get to parallel with support, there’s likely no squat mobility drill in the world that done thousands of times will produce the ability to squat to the floor. You might squeak out an extra millimeter or two, but that’s about it. Working more on your squat depth may actually produce low back pain, SI pain, and potentially hip impingement.

From a performance basis, if you have a limited amount of hip flexion, you might have trouble getting a neutral spinal position during conventional deadlifts. A more stable position may be a modified sumo stance or a full sumo stance. Potentially, depending on the relative asymmetry of the hips, you may require one foot turned out or the other, and you might even require having one foot posterior of the other relative to the bar.

2. Hip Bridge Test

This one should be fairly straight forward. Lay on your back with bent knees and drive your hips up as high as possible without arching your low back and see how much extension you can get. Most people will get to neutral, and maybe slightly more than that to about 10 degrees. Some people can get incredibly far into extension, as judged by the line from the middle of the thigh through the torso. A straight line denotes neutral, whereas a position of slightly flexed is a negative angle of extension, and a position where the hip is ahead of the torso is a positive extension angle.

If you can get to extension beyond neutral, congratulations, you have more range of motion than I do in that regard. I can barely get to neutral on a good day.

For individuals who lack extension to or past neutral, developing anything that would resemble a good kick in sprinting would prove challenging. Likewise, hip thrusts would be a bit of a struggle to get to a solid lockout, and would always look like a short range of motion.

3. Goalie Stretch

This is a great test of the lateral capability of the hip joint in a somewhat passive manner. On hands and knees, try to open the knees as wide as possible without ripping yourself in two. When you get as wide as possible, try to sit back as far as possible without letting your low back round.

This gives an idea of how wide your stance for squats and deadlifts could be at it’s widest part. This may not be where you would have your deepest position, but just where the very outside edge of your ability would be. If you barely get your hips to make a 90 degree angle with each other, your odds of taking a very wide sumo stance or squat stance is likely pretty slim without causing some serious hip pain or discomfort.

These three tests will give you a lot of information:

• What position gives you the best squat depth, and what your actual ability to go into hip flexion is from that depth.
• How much hip extension you have in a gross sense.
• How much lateral mobility you have.

From this you can determine whether you have a lot of mobility, a specific directional limitation, or are built more like the Tinman from the Wizard of Oz, always looking for the oil can.

Let’s break down a couple of scenarios and see what positions would be best for you.

1. Low flexion, low extension, low lateral movement: You’re the proverbial Tinman. Getting to depth is always an issue, so doing higher squats to a box may be your reality. Likewise, deadlifting from the floor may be an aggressive amount of flexion, so taking somewhat of a modified sumo stance may be required to prevent low back involvement and possibly rack or block pulls. In fact, conventional pulls from the floor may be your deficit deadlift. The good news is you can carry and hold anything forever. You’re a prized infantrymen for hiking through rough terrain with a combat pack because you’ll never break down.
2. Good flexion, low extension, low lateral movement: You can squat well, but sprinting is a challenge to get any kind of kick without having your low back do all the work. Shoulder width stance is awesome, but going much wider than this causes some lateral hip discomfort. You prefer conventional pulls to sumo, and can pull from the floor well.
3. Good flexion, low extension, high lateral movement: You can pick your squat stance from a wide array of possibilities. Sprint extension is tough, but the lateral mobility makes you look like a ninja at times.
4. Low flexion, low extension, high lateral movement: You can squat deep, but need to have a country mile between your feet. Wider is better for you, so sumo pulls and very wide stance squats are best to hit depth. When you move to slightly wider than shoulder width, you lose any depth and wind up feeling tight.
5. High flexion, high extension, high lateral movement: You’re some kind of sick mobility Cirque du Soleil freak who can pretty much do any movement possible. You also likely have trouble with the odd bit of tendinitis here and there as your muscles try to provide stability that may not be present in your hip sockets, but it’s manageable.

With this information, you can choose your exercises based on what works well for you and what doesn’t, and avoid banging your head against a wall trying to form your hips into a range of motion they may never get. With this new focus you can train hard and keep your focus on the stuff that’s going to get you the best bang for your training time, without wasting copious time spent on minimal benefit drills. Train hard, train smart, and train to get the best results possible.

Advanced Core Training

If you’re interested in learning more from Dean about core training, click HERE and check out his recent DVD. It’s just over 4 hours long and provides .7 CEC’s for NSCA members (trainers from other organizations can petition them to see if they can be granted CEC’s as well).  In the video, you’ll see/learn:

• Detailed outline of core and hip function plus what the results of the assessment mean
• Simplified walkthrough of the approach to core training that can be used for everyone from rehab to elite performance
• Simple changes to variables like breathing and speed that can help change an exercise from a mobility drill to a speed and reaction drill and even to a max strength drill
• Tons of practical takeaways and coaching cues to help viewers implement the exercises and techniques immediately.
• Even some voodoo stuff that actually works.

The post No Two Hips Are The Same: How Anatomical Variance Can Affect Your Range of Motion appeared first on Bret Contreras.