Styrka Gym of Tulsa

Inside Tulsa's Most Elite Gym, in Words and Pictures

[styrkagym]

7 tips for finding the right personal trainer

If you’re in the market for a personal trainer, chances are you’ve come across some articles with suggestions on what to look for in a personal trainer. Most articles will list a few types of degrees (exercise science, kinesiology, etc), a few nationally accredited certifications (NASM, ACE, NSCA, etc), and then discuss some obvious stuff like personality and affordability.

But there are some major drawbacks to conventional wisdom, and finding a trainer that’s a good fit for you can be a bit more involved than just checking off a few boxes. Here are some valuable tips to help you find a trainer you’ll have fun working with and will help you achieve your goals safely and quickly.

1. Certifications don’t tell you much of anything useful

Certifications have their place in a trainer’s education, but most nationally accredited certifications - the ones personal trainers are really pushed to get and maintain - are more or less worthless.

First, the tests are entirely multiple choice and based on rote memorization. This means that after passing the test, the trainer is unlikely to retain most of the information they needed to pass. It also means they aren’t required to demonstrate any practical coaching competency, which is a massive drawback - a test might convey theoretical information, but a trainer needs in-the-trenches experience to be an effective coach. Unfortunately, none of the major nationally accredited certifications have any internship or practical requirements whatsoever.

The major certifications are also full of “fluff,” basically worthless information that a personal trainer will never need to use such as cardiovascular anatomy or different types of energy systems. This can be interesting water cooler talk, but it doesn’t tell you anything about a trainer’s ability to coach movements effectively or their understanding of sound programming.

2. Commercial clubs don’t want the best trainers

You’d think that a large, commercial fitness club would want the absolute best trainers - educated, experienced, and professional. But most of those clubs are much more concerned with their margins. It’s not uncommon for them to hire young, inexperienced personal trainers who perhaps have a degree and/or a nationally accredited certification, but these trainers lack the practical experience and reputation to command a higher fee. That means the club can charge the customer - who likely doesn’t know much about how to find a personal trainer outside of their certifications - a premium fee while paying the trainers next to nothing. That’s a win for the club.

In my first personal training job, the average session price was around $50 an hour. I took home $12 an hour. In my last job before going freelance, my highest pay was $17 for sessions that cost around $55. When I went freelance, the lack of overhead meant I was able to reduce the session price while more than doubling my income. Commercial clubs can’t afford the best trainers because they command too a high a fee! Better, they reason, to hire college kids and recent graduates with little or no experience.

3. Don’t get roped in to contracts or packages

You’re at a reputable commercial club. You’ve been introduced to a trainer who you’re told is certified by NASM or another similar nationally accredited organization. Then you’re presented with a few “package” options; namely, the more you purchase the less you pay per session. You’re presented with 40 or 60 session packages costing thousands of dollars. You plan on coming in twice a week and your prospective trainer is totally fine with that - these packages are expensive, after all.

But what happens if you and this new trainer don’t click? If it becomes apparent they don’t really know what they’re doing? In an extreme case, you might decided you’re going to contact management and request another trainer. Unfortunately, most clients don’t know a bad trainer when they work with one, and will likely just decided not to renew when it comes time in a few months.

Don’t get roped into a big sale without at least a trial period first. Work with the trainer a few times, even if you have to pay a higher per-session rate, before you make an expensive long-term commitment. Or, better still, don’t purchase packages at all - at Styrka, we offer monthly subscriptions with no sign-up or cancellation fees, and no contracts.

4. Ask a trainer questions, and make sure they ask them, too.

Don’t just ask a trainer about their education or certification; ask them about their experience. What kinds of clients do they typically work with? What’s their training philosophy? What is their approach to helping you with the specific goals you’ve outlined?

A trainer should also be asking you lots of questions - about your exercise history, your fitness level and knowledge, any injuries or conditions that might affect your ability to exercise, and what’s really driving you. Why do you want to lose weight, ‘tone up’, or whatever? A good coach wants you to develop a healthy relationship with exercise, not just follow a bunch of arbitrary commands. They should talk with you about your health, your body image, and whether the timeline you’ve set for yourself is realistic.

5. Don’t be dazzled by complexity.

Good programming is simple, hard, and effective. Seeing a trainer make their client balance on one leg on a stability ball with a half-dozen bands pulling on them might look impressive, but that kind of nonsense is only going to slow you down. A good coach will keep the suite of exercises relatively small and focus on consistent proper execution of the movement.

6. Don’t worry about getting hot, sweaty, and tired.

It’s not difficult to throw together some canned, randomized workout and get someone out of breath. Here, try this:

Every minute on the minute of 3 burpees, 2 deadlifts, and 1 pull-up. Go for 20 minutes.

Without controlling for the load and contextualizing that workout within a program designed around your abilities and goals, this workout is pointless. But it’s a safe bet that it will make almost anyone hot, sweaty, and tired - even with light loads.

Strength training is different than cardio; you might not actually get all that out of breath in a heavy strength training session. That’s okay! Your coach may want to separate your cardio sessions so that you can focus more on the technical elements of the lifts. Even in cardio sessions, your coach may want you to leave some gas in the tank rather than exhausting yourself. That’s okay too! Don’t confuse feeling tired or sore with doing the work that will help you become stronger and more fit.

7. Personality matters.

Personally, I consider myself more of a technician. I am very focused on the proper execution of the movements, and I’m obsessed with structured programming. I’m not the kind of trainer who is in your face shouting “Come on! One more! Let’s go!”

But, there’s nothing wrong with wanting a trainer who will bring that kind of energy to your workouts. If you are someone who feeds off that kind of energy, I might not be the right trainer for you. At the same time, don’t get sucked into that positive energy to the point that you allow your trainer to overlook poor technique.

An experienced trainer isn’t just after a paycheck - they want the right kinds of clients. They want to work with people who are compatible with their training approach and personality. If you don’t get results with a trainer, you’re not going to be telling other people about them (or worse, you’ll simply tell people you didn’t get the results you wanted), and that’s not good for a trainer’s business over the long term.

That’s why, in addition to an in-depth consultation, it’s well worth it to work with a coach for a trial period. You’re not just trying to gel with their programming style; you’re trying to gel with their personality, too.

At Styrka we have lots of experienced, educated coaches ready to help you achieve your goals. Contact us today for a complimentary strategy session and we’ll hash out the details to get you started.

[styrkagym]

Do you need weightlifting shoes?

Weightlifting shoes, sometimes erroneously called “squat shoes,” are shoes designed for the sport of Olympic weightlifting. They feature a hard, elevated heel, velcro straps, and a tight toe box.

Weightlifting shoes exist because the goal of Olympic weightlifting is to lift as much weight as possible. The sport requires some pretty extreme positions (such as an ass-to-grass overhead squat), and the elevated heel facilitates stronger deep-squat positions while assisting the athlete with stabilization.

These types of shoes have bled into other strength sports, and are sometimes recommended for recreational lifters or competitive powerlifters. A good question to determine whether you need shoes designed for Olympic weightlifting is:

Are you an Olympic weightlifter?

If you answered no, then you probably do not need weightlifting shoes. If you are competitive powerlifter, the elevated heel may make attaining competition depth (hip crease below the top of the knee) a bit easier; that’s because a raised heel reduces the amount of dorsiflexion required at any given point in the squat, making it easier for the knee to travel past the toes so the athlete can sit into a full squat. However, powerlifting doesn’t require much ankle mobility, so simple stretches may be more beneficial - and certainly more cost-effective -than purchasing a $200 pair of shoes.

Advocates of weightlifting shoes might tell you that you should get them for “stability.” This is nonsense. Here’s powerlifter Chris Duffin squatting 805lbs in bare feet:

And here’s world record holder Dennis Cornelius squatting 795lbs in bare feet:

Do you think these lifters are having trouble with “stability”? Of course not. Your feet are stable, and a stable base is indeed a skill unto itself that can be learned - one which weightlifting shoes might actually inhibit in novice lifters. This doesn’t mean you need to squat in bare feet (although doing so can be a great tool for developing even pressure through the foot). You ought to avoid shoes with a soft insole (like running shoes) when lifting heavy weights, but any flat, firm, comfortable shoe will do just fine.

[styrkagym]

Want to get stronger? Keep it simple.

Today I came across the Instagram account of a fairly high-profile personal trainer (close to 100k followers and trainer of several professional athletes) whose profile mostly consists of people doing stuff like this:

Strength training is not complicated. There are nuances to proper technical execution of compound lifts, but don't be fooled into thinking that doing all kinds of weird and complicated stuff is more effective than tried and true heavy lifting. It's worth noting that as motor complexity increases, force production decreases. In other words, your muscles can't produce as much force in an unstable environment as they can in a stable one. That's why it takes years of practice to be efficient with Olympic lifts, and why you can't squat as much standing on a BOSU as you can standing on a wood platform. Complexity has an appeal because some gimmick can seem like the hawt new thang, but the best strength athletes in the world do the same basic lifts. It's also worth noting that this trainer trains quite a few pro athletes. But research is pretty unequivocal in that this kind of junk doesn't actually translate into better sports performance, because sports performance is very motor-skill-specific. Specificity of training is a bedrock of good coaching, and doing junk like this will only make you better at doing junk like this.

[styrkagym]

FMS: Movement Pseudoscience?

There are a variety of "movement screening systems", most notably FMS - "Functional Movement Systems", developed in 1997 - that purport to screen for injury risk in physical activity. The hypothesis is that inefficient movement patterns, restrictions in mobility, weaknesses in "core strength", etc., create "compensatory" movements that increase the risk for injury. Once "dysfunctions" in movement are identified, a suite of "corrective exercise" is prescribed under the presumption that this will reduce pain and injury risk.

In my own research on FMS, I was initially a pretty staunch defender - you can comb Google Scholar and find small studies claiming a statistically significant effect in predicting injury rates among various specialty populations, like soccer or football players. Low FMS scores are, in these studies, associated with higher injury risk.

However, a closer examination of the science reveals some deep-seated problems with its design, scope, and reliability. It's a case, as it often is in fitness fads, of the marketing cart being ahead of the research horse. Two research reviews published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found the quality of FMS research to be generally quite poor, and better controlled research has failed to substantiate the claims of FMS practitioners.

So, the article below from PainScience.com is a very richly-cited and thorough examination of the problems with FMS. Some notable takeaways:

- FMS screening cannot detect people who are already injured, which casts serious doubts on its ability to predict future injury.

- As a diagnostic tool, FMS cannot identify causal variables for "pathological" movement, such as someone in the early stages of a neurological disorder. Without being able to identify a causal mechanism, the "treatment" of corrective exercise protocols is inherently unreliable.

- Telling someone they have a poor FMS score can induce false beliefs about injury risk, prompting them to move less or avoid progressive load out of an unfounded fear of being injured.

- The criteria for ideal movement patterns development for FMS screening is arbitrary. There are no movement patterns known to be associated with generally increased risk of injury, and that's because.....

- The human body is remarkably adaptive. Think for example of Armand Poireaux, the young French CrossFit athlete who gained fame for performing a 155lb clean despite having cerebral palsy. Virtually nothing about his movement conforms to FMS-type standards of movement (much less the standards of Olympic weightlfting), yet he and others with neurological disorders are able to exercise without pain or heightened injury risk.

- Finally, the most consistent predictors of injury rates among athletes are training load and volume. Heavy load performed under fatigue reliably increases injury rates:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29943231

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5394138/

A deeper problem is that FMS has now been practiced for over 20 years. No small number of fitness professionals carry various FMS certifications and make regular use of it in practice. Even after the research rolls in and shows it to be an unreliable diagnostic and corrective tool set, it can be extremely difficult to convince people who are deeply invested in it to change course.

Full article at PainScience.com

[styrkagym]

Managing volume in your training program

We’ve all heard the saying “Less is more.” But in the case of training, that’s false - more is more. We should all strive to train to our maximal recoverable volume - i.e., the most amount of training we can do and still recover enough to train consistently and achieve our goals.

How do we find that sweet spot where we’re forcing an adaptation, but not driving ourselves into overtraining? The answer lies is periodization - not just of macrocycles (yearly), microcycles (weekly), and mesocycles (4-6 weeks, usually) of training, but daily regulation of volume and intensity to stave off excess fatigue. Overreaching is a type of training phase in which the volume is deliberately excessive, in order to force an adaptation. The lifter will often experience a loss of strength. But the phase is only meant to be temporary, and the volume is eventually scaled back as loads increase.

What we want to do is drive as much stimulus to the muscles as possible while minimizing fatigue of the central nervous system. Even in an overreaching mesocycle, we want the majority of fatigue to be localized to muscles and not the CNS. Excessive CNS fatigue will prevent daily sessions from being productive because the athlete will simply be unable to complete the necessary volume at the prescribed loads.

For example, a squat development mesocycle might comprise six weeks of increased frequency and volume of squatting. Squatting can be very stressful on the CNS, so the coach needs to adjust the load appropriately in order to ensure the lifter isn’t overwhelmed by the volume and intensity right off the bat. Typically such a cycle will begin with relatively higher volume and lower load, then slightly reduce volume over a course of weeks

Using ancillary exercises

While managing load and volume for key exercises is the time-tested method of staving off fatigue, there’s another method that can allow the athlete to maintain volume and intensity without inducing excess CNS fatigue: using ancillary exercises that are designed to hit the main muscle groups that drive the primary movement, but don’t induce as much general fatigue.

A great example of this is belt squats. Belt squats allow the lifter to produce a natural squatting motion and use heavy load without the general fatigue that accumulates from having to stabilize a heavy barbell on the shoulders. A typical squat progression in a powerlifting program, for example, might look like this:

Build to a 3RM

Reduce weight by 10% and perform 5 sets of 3 reps

Performing 5 sets of triples at 90% of your 3RM is undoubtedly going to be very tiring. But if belt squats are substituted for the volume work, the lifter can train the musculature of the legs and hips at high intensity and volume without generating as much systemic fatigue as would be accumulated doing the same amount of work under a barbell.

Using periodization

Training to maximal recoverable volume isn’t an indefinite process - far from it. On the contrary, it’s a phase in a periodization cycle that we should aim for, but then dial back. Periodization simply refers to planned training cycles that vary in frequency, intensity, and volume. The standard division is:

Macrocycle (long term, anywhere from 6 months to a year)

Mesocycle (months or multiple weeks)

Microcycle (weekly)

The macrocycle represents the broader goals and training plan. Each micro- and mesocycle is designed to help the athlete achieve their goals by manipulating the above-mentioned variables. A strength-focused mesocycle, for example, will often start with lower loads but higher volume and frequency. As the load increases, the volume is decreased slightly, and frequency may be dialed back as well. After peaking at maximal recoverable volume, the athlete will enter a deload that allows them to manage inflammation and recover from the intensity of the previous mesocycle while still reinforcing the motor skill essential to proper execution of the core lifts.

If all this sounds overly complicated, that’s why we offer training programs and virtual coaching. Take a short quiz to find out what’s ideal for you!

[styrkagym]

Don't overcomplicate things

by Mike Doolittle, Styrka owner/head coach

I referred someone on a strength training forum to this instructional video earlier today (it's basically the same method I use to teach the deadlift)—and I think there's something really important and possibly controversial in here, but it's a point that aligns strongly with our approach to strength training at Styrka:

"There is no prerequisite to learning the deadlift. You don't need yoga-like mobility to bend over and grab a barbell. You don't need to work on your posture before learning the deadlift, because the deadlift itself will fix your posture. You don't need to worry about 'activating your glutes' before you deadlift, because it is impossible to perform a deadlift without activating all of the muscles involved—especially when it's a heavy deadlift.

"It makes no sense to waste your time or your clients' time performing secondary movements that are more complicated than the primary movements you are trying to get better at."

Something that carries over to strength training from my background as a musician is that motor skill is highly task-specific. If you want to get better at squats, deadlifts, presses, and rows, you simply have to practice them. There are basic technical standards that allow you to move more efficiently, but no novice trainee is going to perform perfect repetitions all the time. The only way to get acclimated to heavy load is by using consistent technical execution with progressive load. You mitigate injury and improve technique not by deferring to accessory work when there are technical errors, but by simply managing the volume and load.

Alan Thrall here is part of Barbell Medicine, and that crew in my view can take this view too far—essentially dismissing most or all corrective and mobility work as a waste of time. That's the other extreme I can't get on board with, as I think especially for more advanced athletes there are many instances in which such accessory work is valuable.

But the central point remains that if you want to get stronger, you don't have to make things complicated. Just learn the basic technical standards, practice, and gradually increase the load. If your technique is consistently breaking down, lighten the load and gradually work back up again.

It really is that simple.

[styrkagym]

The importance of novice programming

One of the most difficult tasks facing a novice is how to determine the optimum training volume—how many sets, reps, and exercises should I do? How many days a week should I train? What weight should I use? How much cardio should I do?

There is no single right answer to any of these questions. The answer varies widely dependent on a great number of factors, including but not limited to:

Exercise history (type, frequency, time since training regularly)

Age

Body composition

Injuries and limitations (such as mobility restrictions)

Individual tolerance for exercise

Goals

Time you are able to commit to training

Consistency of training

This is why, for novice trainees, the application of a simple, structured, progressive program is so important. A novice simply lacks the data to accurately gauge the correct answers to these questions. The purpose of a novice program is not to find the optimal exercise prescription right away—that takes months or even years—but to gather data.

Who is a novice?

A novice is someone who meets any of the following three criteria:

No regular exercise for 3 months or longer

This might seem counter-intuitive the case of advanced athletes who just take a long break, but even an advanced competitive athlete will have to spend time in a novice-type program following a long hiatus in order to optimally evaluate and redevelop their tolerance for training

Lack of experience executing basic compound exercise with consistent precision within clearly delineated technical parameters—in other words, having excellent technique in major lifts (squats, deadlifts, presses, rows, etc.) and lots of practice (for a rote novice, that can be anywhere from 6 months to 2 years) executing that technique.

Lack of prior experience or current conditioning in a given modality (i.e. strength training, kettlebell training, Olympic weightlifting, high-intensity interval training, etc)

Pretty simple! A novice isn’t just a rote beginner; it’s also someone who hasn’t trained consistently in a while. Someone who regularly misses workouts or fails to train consistently for an extended period of time will have a lot of difficulty moving past the novice stage.

Novice programming: simpler is better

Keeping in mind the goals of the trainee, a novice program should not be complicated. The goals may be any combination of:

General strength

Muscle mass

Muscle endurance

Aerobic capacity

Fat loss

Post-rehabilitation functional strength

Because we’re biased toward the simplicity and efficacy of barbell training here at Styrka, we generally recommend that novices begin by following a basic strength training program comprised of a small number of compound exercises (squats, deadlifts, pull-ups, rows, presses) for 3-5 sets of 3-5 repetitions per exercise, 3 sessions per week. Squats are trained every session, with the other exercises rotated. The weight starts as light as is needed for the trainee to demonstrate sound technical execution, and the weight is increased in small increments every session—this is called linear progression.

Regardless of the long-term goals, we generally recommend that accessory exercises, such as dumbbell exercises or cardio, be avoided at first. We want to begin with a simple program and assess tolerance. Often, just a simple exercise program can be pretty taxing for a novice. Each month, we can reassess the athlete and adjust the program as need. If fat loss is the goal, we can begin adding in cardio—again in small increments that increase very gradually. If muscle mass is the goal, we can start adding in moderate volume dumbbell work.

The key is to add as few variables as possible at any given time, so that the trainee is progressing consistently. Consistent progress in a limited number of variables will always, without exception, produce significantly better results than inconsistent progression across a wide variety of variables.

Trying to do too much

Too often, novices get excited about working out and they want to have it all. They want to be leaner, stronger, and more muscular. They want to have more endurance and better flexibility. But all of these domains require specificity of training. Sure, there is crossover—heavy barbell training, for example, can be very demanding on the cardiovascular system and will unquestionably develop muscle mass. But the primary goal of such training is the development of sound, consistent biomechanics and general strength, and it’s important to assess the trainee’s tolerance in basic training before expanding the modalities.

That’s why the best program for a novice is a simple on. You have to learn to walk before you can run! There are trendy fitness classes whose approach is constantly varying the training modalities and prescriptions, with the intent of “chasing fatigue” rather than ensuring the athlete is making consistent, measurable progress. Start small, take one step at a time, and you’ll accomplish great things.

Are you a novice looking to get started on the right foot? Visit our coaching page to find out how we can help!

[styrkagym]

Lumbar flexion in heavy lifts

Contrary to popular belief, some degree of lumbar flexion is not only safe in a heavy pull, it's actually necessary and is indicative of proper bracing. If you watch elite powerlifters squat and deadlift, you'll invariably see a bit of lumbar flexion. This pic is Lasha Talakhadze snatching his world record 220kg (485lbs) at last years IWF World Championship:

But everyone is different, and there's naturally going to be a bit of variance in the degree of flexion. Lasha here probably had to adapt to a bit more flexion than most because he's tall for a weightlifter (6'5").

This is why we don't teach "neutral spine." It's a useless cue. Neutral is a range, not a single position for all athletes in all lifts. Instead, we teach BRACING. That means taking a huge breath, pushing the stomach (not your diaphragm, but your belt line) outward as much as possible, then bearing down like someone's about you punch you hard in the stomach. When you do that, you'll naturally flex your lumbar spine a bit, but the intra abdominal pressure (IAP) you've just created will prevent excessive (dangerous) flexion. That IAP is integral for maximum force transfer from your feet through the bar.

Your shoulder blades (scapulae) should be depressed (pulled toward your butt), not retracted (pinched together). Retracting the scapulae elevates the rib cage and prevents optimal IAP. Depressing your scapulae contracts your lats very hard, which—in addition to improving IAP—assists in keeping the bar close to your body during heavy pulls. Notice Lasha is not arching his mid back. Again this is invariably the case among elite lifters in both weightlifting and powerlifting.

For your next PR, don't worry about a "neutral" spine. Worry about bracing correctly, as hard as you possibly can. That is how you'll safely move the most weight you're capable of.

[styrkagym]

Let's talk about "squatting below parallel"—a critique of Starting Strength

What you're in for  1,993 words, about 11 minutes read time Key Points:

"Below parallel" is a common directive and, in the book Starting Strength, is described as an essential component of a technically correct squat.

Depth and range of motion are related, but not identical, and increasing depth through the use of weightlifting shoes or a wider stance does not necessarily incur a corresponding increase in range of motion in the knees and hips—indeed, those 'fixes' may reduce the range of motion.

For many athletes, the directive to squat below parallel is unnecessary and even counterproductive. Focus should instead be on maintain the 'tripod foot' through the longest effective range of motion.

I like Starting Strength. A lot, actually. I've used it myself, and I've found it to be a helpful guide for many aspiring athletes with little or no experience under a barbell. And heck—sometimes those who've been training for years can benefit from a little coaching and fine-tuning of their technique. The linear progression model of programming advocated in the book, while nothing particularly special in terms of producing strength gains, effectively helps novice athletes refine their technical execution of basic barbell lifts as they gradually acclimate to heavier weights. Consistent technical execution and gradual progression into heavy loads—definitely a great approach.

I think that like many instructional guides in strength training, the book works best when— like the Pirate Code—it is viewed as a guideline. It will help many novice athletes get stronger and improve their execution and confidence with barbell-oriented lifts. But over the years of following the Starting Strength community, listening to podcasts, and engaging in online communities, I've found that too often those guidelines are presented as dogma—rules that all aspiring athletes must follow to get stronger in the fastest, safest, and most efficient manner. 

There are a couple of contentious issues surrounding the way the squat is taught in Starting Strength. One is the advocacy of "low-bar" squats. Greg Nuckols, writing for Stronger By Science, penned a superbly well-researched article on squat variations which concludes, more or less, that for most people (non-competitors) the squat variation used doesn't really matter that much. I strongly recommend giving it a read. 

But today I want to tackle another issue: the prescription of "squatting below parallel."

A rule, or a guideline?

In Starting Strength, 3rd Edition, author Mark Rippetoe declares, "If it's too heavy to squat below parallel, it's too heavy to have on your back." He later emphasizes, "Any deviation from this position will constitute bad technique." He claims that a below-parallel low-bar squat uses "the full range of motion of the hips and knees." But there are several problems with these statements, the most relevant being that depth is not the same thing as range of motion. They're closely related, certainly, but it's important to understand the difference and how to apply it to your own training or coaching. 

The concept of squatting below parallel comes from competitive powerlifting. It's a simple way for judges to ascertain, as fairly as possible, whether someone did a "complete" repetition on the competition platform. This simple rule demarcates a clear standard to which all competitors must adhere. While this is fine for the purposes of competitive powerlifting, there are three variables which determine the effective range of motion for an athlete:

The individual's anthropometry

The individual's squatting stance

The individual's mobility

A lifter with short femurs and a long torso will generally have a considerably easier time squatting below parallel than a lifter with longer femurs. Longer femurs substantially increase the demands of ankle dorsiflexion required to achieve proper competition depth. This can be abated somewhat with a wider stance—which also reduces the range of motion required by the hips and knees. 

By assuming a wider stance or simply being blessed with good genetics for squatting, some people can achieve competition depth—"below parallel"—fairly easily. It does not mean, though, that they are squatting through a fuller range of motion at the hips and knees. This bears repeating: depth and range of motion are related, but distinct. "Depth" is the arbitrary point at which a squat is considered a "good lift" in competition, " regardless of stance, anthropometry, or mobility; range of motion" occurs at the joints. So what about those individuals who aren't gifted with the anthropometry of an elite powerlifter? 

"Squat Shoes"

To better understand the issue of depth vs range of motion, I like to talk about lifting shoes, which the coaches at Starting Strength regularly recommend, going so far as to argue that you "need shoes for squats" (you do not). Low-profile powerlifting-oriented shoes, such as the Adidas Powerlifts, have a slight heel-to-toe drop around a half inch. Olympic weightlifting shoes, such as the Nike Romaleos and Reebok Legacy Lifters, have a considerably more exaggerated heel-to-toe drops—average is 18.5mm, or about 3/4"; the Legacy Lifters have a 22mm drop, and some weightlifting shoes even have a 24mm drop (a full inch!). Olympic weightlifters are required to squat ass-to-grass with a nearly upright torso, and even elite weightlifters don't always have sufficient ankle mobility to pull this off. Even among those who do have exceptional mobility, a weightlifting shoe makes the upright torso position easier to attain. 

What's interesting about these shoes is that even doing low-bar squats, many users report their squats feeling much better. Where they might have struggled to consistently hit parallel without excess lumbar flexion or valgus knees, now they are consistently and easily hitting that arbitrary depth with few if any technical errors. "These shoes feel great!" As Rippetoe himself says in the book, "Olympic weightlifting shoes have a little lift in the heel that makes it easier to get the knees forward just in front of the toes. Your choice will depend on your squatting style and your anthropometry." Well, why? What's really happening when you squat with an elevated heel?

The answer is that you are essentially cheating the amount of ankle dorsiflexion required to achieve a below-parallel squat. You are not actually increasing the range of motion through which the knees and hips are traveling; indeed, with a high enough heel drop, you may even be using slightly less range of motion in your knees and hips to reach the same arbitrary depth. 

It's not hard to see why this usually feels better. When you lack sufficient mobility in dorsiflexion, as you descend into the bottom position of the squat your body will try to compensate in some way. The weight distribution will shift off the midfoot and pitch forward or back, and the lumbar spine will go into increased flexion. It can feel like you really have to force your body to get into that below-parallel position—because if you're like a lot of lifters, you do! Cheating the degree of dorsiflexion required allows you to achieve the same below-parallel depth without bending your knees and hips any further. But you aren't actually utilizing a greater range of motion—you've just changed the angle of your ankles. 

Starting Strength online communities abound with threads on the best Olympic weightlifting shoes to purchase for low-bar back squats, and comments from users about how much better it feels to squat with them. But in addition to the dubious advice of spending up to $200 on shoes designed for an Olympic sport to perform the relatively less demanding mobility requirements of low-bar squats, the use of shoes with elevated heels can present problems because they subtly alter the kinematics of the lift.

A common error among novice weightlifters is, when pulling the bar from the floor in a snatch or clean, a tendency to pitch forward onto the balls of the feet. This error can occur in part because of the footwear—the elevated heels incline the foot and naturally cue the lifter to push from the balls of the feet. It takes time and practice to find stability over the middle of the foot while utilizing a shoe with a heel drop. This is important, because weightlifting shoes should never be considered a quick fix—they require an understanding of what they do and how to adapt to them. A less expensive fix is to stretch the soleus. A quicker fix is to simply quit worrying about squatting below parallel.  

An alternative to below parallel: the tripod foot

In The Squat Bible, Dr. Aaron Horschig, DPT, describes the "tripod foot"—even pressure on the ball of the foot behind the big toe, the ball of the foot behind the little toe, and the heel. A cue such as "knees out!" (a common one among Starting Strength coaches) should always be followed with an emphasis on the tripod foot, so the athlete does not mistakenly abduct the knees so much that their weight shifts to the outside edges of their feet. 

Any cue or error correction a coach can offer in a squat will always ultimately be about preserving the tripod foot. The center of gravity can only be properly maintained over the midfoot if the tripod foot is engaged through the full range of motion. Excess lumbar flexion or an incorrect torso angle will cause the weight on the foot to shift forward or backward (depending on the lifter's anthropometry). Valgus knees (knees collapsing inward) will cause the weight to shift off the outside balls of the feet and, often, the heels. 

For some athletes, the time and trouble of squatting to an arbitrary competition depth is simply not worth the effort. A woman with long femurs who has spent two decades wearing high heels will have a more difficult time squatting to "depth" than a woman with short femurs and a lifetime of wearing mostly flat shoes. Regularly stretching the soleus muscles can often produce significant changes to squat depth, but not everyone is built to do equally deep squats, which is apparent even in elite international Olympic weightlifting competition. If an athlete has invested considerable time and effort into improving their ankle mobility and made considerable improvements to their depth but still cannot consistently achieve an error-free below-parallel position without elevating their heels with an expensive shoe, it's probably time to ease up and focus on getting that person stronger within their functional range of motion by having them squat as low as they can while maintaining the tripod foot. Chances are, the client is not a competitive powerlifter and this will work just fine. If they are a competitor and they have to hit that arbitrary depth, tell 'em to buy some lifting shoes.  

Is squatting below parallel bad?

There's nothing inherently wrong with squatting below parallel, provided the athlete can achieve it without technical errors and without the assistance of an elevated heel. Some coaches like it because it provides a clear metric by which to measure an athlete's strength gains. If squat depth varies erratically, it can be difficult if not impossible to determine whether the athlete is actually getting stronger—regardless of whether they're adding weight to the bar. But even this is not a perfect metric, and even elite lifters show some variance in their squat depth from session to session. Loose clothing and even slightly varied viewing angles may make it difficult to ascertain precisely when the athlete has achieved parallel. Further, any variation in foot stance from session to session will directly affect the lifter's ability to squat below parallel. A coach need only say, "That's about right."

Accordingly, it should not be difficult to ensure someone is progressing in strength as long as they are squatting to a consistent depth with a consistent stance. If their stance changes, their depth may look better or worse but that doesn't mean the range of motion in the hips and knees has changed. A coach's aim should be to establish a correct stance and consistent depth through the longest effective range of motion possible for that athlete, and then focus on consistent technical execution of the lift and progressive load. If the athlete is able to squat below parallel, that's great. If a little light mobility work allows them to achieve that depth, that's great too. But if they're still having difficulty after weeks or months of training, hammering them on an inch or two of "depth" is counterproductive, especially if they are not competitive athletes. 

I should reiterate, as I emphasized at the outset, that though I have my nitpicks with it, I have used and frequently recommend Starting Strength. There are quite a few outstanding strength coaches who hold the titular certification, and the programming and exercise instruction have helped many novice athletes get stronger. But it's important that technical instruction of any lift be adapted to the needs and goals of the athlete. That's why "squat below parallel," while a useful guideline in many circumstances, need not be a primary goal for many athletes and should be applied judiciously—not dogmatically. 

[styrkagym]

How good is good enough?

A schism

There's a schism among fitness professionals. In the middle is the model of generalized personal training, such as that proposed by the National Academy of Sports Medicine's "OPT" model, which aims to personalize client programming according to mobilization, stabilization, strength, and power development. This school of thought places a large emphasis on traditional, bodybuilding-style isolation movements that are generally at lighter weight and lower intensities than traditional heavy barbell movements like squats, deadlifts, and presses. There's a growing view that this style of training is not particularly effective, and this view has split into a couple of broadly divergent schools of thought. 

At one side of that is a growing chorus of movement and stabilization specialists, who place a heavy emphasis on mobility development and rigorously precise dynamic and static postures. Entire training protocols are developed around the minutiae of muscular activation and control, with the thought that this is the most optimal way to train pain-free and with minimal injury risk.

At the other side of the traditional personal training approach is a sort of throwback—an emphasis on simple, heavy strength training. Some of these individuals essentially dismiss corrective exercise and mobility work as a waste of time. They emphasize the repeated execution of basic movements with progressive resistance, and generally believe that technical errors can generally be corrected with simple practice and mindful coaching rather than incorporating time-consuming correctives. 

Diverging from the model

Recently I trained a client in his early 40s who, a few years ago, suffered multiple strokes. We'll call him Dave. Dave has since lost a significant amount of weight primarily through dietary changes, but he had some understandable anxiety about strength training. His lack of motor control and strength on his left side, a remnant of his strokes several years earlier, often left him afraid to even try basic strength-training exercises.

Within three sessions, he was doing low-bar barbell back squats with 65lbs. A very light weight, certainly, but remarkable progress nonetheless. Now, if I were to compare Dave's barbell squat mechanics to those of an elite powerlifter, there would certainly be divergence from the model of what we consider an ideal squat. He has difficulty tracking his knees properly; his depth was a bit inconsistent; he had trouble finding a good bar position.

And yet, his squats were, in my view as a coach, good enough. He didn't demonstrate valgus knees (caving inward) or excess lumber flexion. He was able to maintain his balance on the midfoot and brace properly during each rep. Though many aspects of his squat were not yet ideal, that's okay because he's a total novice. His squat did not look like that of an elite lifter, but he was not lifting anywhere near the intensity of such an athlete. We should not expect that someone who has no experience squatting under load should demonstrate the same measure of consistent technical precision as someone who has been at an elite competitive level for many years.  

The question, for a coach, is how much diversion from the ideal we ought allow before integrating corrective exercises. On one extreme are coaches who believe that the movement must be brought as close to the ideal as possible through corrective exercises before any load is introduced or progressed. On the other side are coaches who believe that practice and cues are sufficient to weed out any technical errors over time, and that time spent on corrective exercise would be better spent on mindful practice of the exercises. 

What works for some....

I tend to fall somewhere in the middle of these two camps. Personally, I have seen correctives—mobility drills, stabilization cues, and activation exercises—work with remarkable speed and efficacy in many, many clients during my 14 years as a strength coach. To dismiss them outright, as some do, is in my view a shortsighted approach that short changes the client. On the other hand, I've seen coaches all but avoid basic strength training out of fear they will injure their clients if movement patterns aren't virtually flawless. 

Muhammad "Sword" Sultan, Egyptian national weightlifting champion, posted some time ago on his Instagram his overhead squat positions before and after he had spent a few months improving his ankle mobility. His mobility prior had been sufficient to propel him to a national weightlifting championship, but it still was not ideal. With practice and mobility work, this elite athlete was able to improve his positions and become that much better a weightlifter. This kind of minor technical correction indicates that ideal positions may be elusive, but also that a certain amount of divergence from the ideal is normal, even among elite athletes. 

One of my own clients, a competitive powerlifter, had a persistent elbow injury leading into her last competition. The injury was aggravated by sub-optimal bar position in the squat, but we did not stop squatting—we adapted. We were able to manage the pain and work around the injury leading in, but for her next prep cycle we decided to use specialized barbells to prevent aggravating the injury while she pursues rehabilitation under the guidance of a specialist.

There will be many athletes for whom simple coaching cues and practice will indeed correct a number of mistakes. As the body gets stronger, it seeks efficient movement patterns and, with time, many common novice errors are weeded out simply through mindful repetition. But in many cases, the athlete demonstrates a persistent error that is resistance to correction through cuing. In those cases, it may be wise to integrate corrective exercise. 

Loaded vs. Unloaded 

In a loaded barbell lift like a squat, deadlift, press, clean & jerk, or snatch, there are fundamental differences in the movement compared to doing the movements without any load at all. The ability to perform an "Asian squat" without load, for example, does not indicate the the individual can stabilize a barbell overhead in a full squat—as in the receiving position of a snatch. This is because in bodyweight movements, the athlete's body is the center of gravity; in loaded movements, the barbell becomes the center of gravity, and the mechanics of the movement must adapt accordingly. 

For that reason, preventing athletes from training under progressive load out of fear they will injure themselves simply robs them of the opportunity to adapt. Failing to load at all, or failing to load progressively, are just as fundamentally misguided as increasing the load too quickly or ignoring technical mistakes altogether. 

When Dave squatted 65lbs for 3 sets of 5 reps, he made many minor technical errors. Sometimes his knees wobbled a bit and he needed to be reminded to drive them outward as he descended. Sometimes his hips rose too quickly, and he had to be reminded to "push the floor away" through his midfoot. The bar position was a bit asymmetrical due to mobility restrictions and a lack of muscular control on his left side. But none of those issues prevented him from learning how to put weight on a bar and squat. Over time, repetition of the movement will allow him to hit depth consistently without being reminded to push his knees outward. We'll likely have to work on his shoulder mobility through some simple stretches, but he'll also learn to adapt to the proper bar position with practice.

It's also likely that as he progresses, other minor technical errors will crop up. That doesn't mean he should stop squatting; it just means his errors need to be addressed as they come. Sometimes just a slight regression in weight, combined with simple cues; other times, it may be some simple stretches or activation exercises. But what's important is that he keeps training, keeps progressing, and keeps getting stronger.

[styrkagym]

Olympic Weightlifting Open Platform

Hop on a platform and practice Olympic weightlifting free of charge—just sign a waiver and have fun! Coaching is not provided. 

[styrkagym]

OKC Fit Expo

Join us at the Cox Convention Center in Oklahoma City as we support our members and clients who are competing in USPA powerlifting! Tickets to the event can be purchased here.

[styrkagym]

How important is mobility?

There's a certain camp of strength training enthusiasts out there (who shall remain nameless) who have been strong advocates against mobility work. According to these individuals, stretching, foam rolling, and active mobility drills are a waste of time. Just practice the movement your sport demands, and don't waste time doing something that doesn't make you stronger.

This is partly a reaction to the opposite camp—mobility enthusiasts who spend a considerable amount of time at the gym doing various mobility routines. (There's even a popular app with 15-20 minute daily mobility routines.) These routines aren't necessarily designed to address any specific deficiency; it's just arising from a general idea that more mobility is good. 

As a coach I feel there is a healthy middle ground to be found here. Stretching just to stretch is very likely counterproductive. There's some clinical evidence that stretching prior to a workout may reduce strength, and flexibility without stabilization is practically asking for injury. We don't just want an arbitrarily long passive range of motion around a given joint—we want full strength, stability and control.

But targeted mobility work is nonetheless extremely valuable. It should not be surprising that people who have been sedentary for years and/or sit hunched in front of a desk all day often have tight soleus muscles, hip flexors, hamstrings, adductors, pectorals, and lats. These limitations are readily apparent when clients cannot perform simple movements like squatting to parallel under load, deadlifting a loaded barbell with a neutral spine, or press a weight straight overhead. Instead we see posterior pelvic tilt, protracted shoulders, and valgus knee movement. 

While there's some truth to the idea that simply practicing a movement will over time result in improvement in the required positions, target mobility work can radically accelerate the learning process and therefore should be a primary focus for novice athletes who display any of the above movement patterns. A simple way of diagnosing the issue is to modify the exercise in such a way as to reduce the mobility requirements and reassess the athlete.

For example, some common cues in the squat are "proud chest," "hips back," and "drive the knees out." These cues are designed to facilitate proper bar path and a neutral spine over the full range of motion. But if a client consistently loses posture toward the bottom range of the squat, we can try elevating the heels (to reduce the amount of ankel dorsiflexion required) or switching to a one-leg squat variation (to remove the transverse articulation of the hip joint). If the athlete is immediately able to perform the correct movement, it's a good indication that simply badgering them with the same cues will be counterproductive. 

Similarly, it's common for novice athletes to struggle with a full-range conventional deadlift. We often see difficulty with the setup and the first 6-8 inches of the pull, where posterior pelvic tilt and/or protracted shoulders create a convex spine that reduces power and increases the risk of injury. A simple fix is to elevate the bar on pulling blocks—say 15cm to start. If the athlete can immediately perform the movement correctly, it's again an indication that they understand the cues but struggle with a physically limited range of motion. Barking the same cues to encourage a proper setup will not help the athlete—they need targeted mobility work to correct their deficiencies first. 

A good coach will not waste an athlete's time with general-purpose stretching, nor will they tell the athlete to ignore mobility work and simply practice the same movements incorrectly; instead, a good coach will diagnose the deficiency and work with the athlete to make specific, strategic mobility corrections to improve overall performance of the movement. The sooner such deficiencies are identified and weeded out, the sooner the athlete can start getting stronger. 

Want help fixing your lifts? Find out what we at Styrka can do for you today.

[styrkagym]

Personal Training Certifications: Approach with Caution

"Certified Personal Trainer." It sounds so... official! So professional! But what if I told you that many certifications are almost totally worthless? 

For brevity, I'll divide certifications into three broad categories:

Nationally accredited certifications

Unaccredited online certifications

Practical certifications

The former are commonplace; many commercial fitness centers require their trainers to have at least one nationally accredited certification such as NASM, NSCA, ACE, or ACSM. While they might sound official, they're not particularly difficult to obtain: they require a few months of studying followed by a multiple-choice exam. In their defense, these certifications are meant to be foundational. Someone whose only experience is attaining one of these credentials is likely not ready to be an effective coach; the certifications give a broad overview of anatomy, kinesiology, exercise technique, and (sometimes) business and marketing strategies. 

Unaccredited online courses are essentially the bottom of the barrel: they likely require little study or prior experience, are easy to pass, and are relatively inexpensive. They're not held to the standards of a national accreditation organization such as the NCCA. 

Practical certifications may or may not be accredited, but they require the trainer to demonstrate proficiency in the exercises, and they may be assessed on their ability to coach. StrongFirst, for example, offers three certifications that take place over two full days and require attendees to perform difficult workouts and correct mistakes while coaching their peers. Other well-known practical certifications include CrossFit's various certifications, MovNat, Ground Force Method, RKC, and Starting Strength. 

Don't Expect Much ROI 

Aside from the unaccredited online courses, there's really nothing wrong with any of the above certifications. But for trainers, accruing these certifications can be a massive waste of money. While they can indeed impart valuable specialized knowledge, their relative obscurity to the general public makes a return on investment a dubious prospect. 

In nearly 15 years of personal training, I can count on one hand the number of times I've been directly asked if I had a certification. The prospective client had no idea what a 'good' personal training credential was; he just wanted the reassurance that I had something. And that's part of the problem: nobody outside of the fitness industry knows anything about personal training certifications. Many of the best and most successful trainers I've known have no certifications to speak of, or have cheap throwaway online certifications. Certifications are often very expensive (StrongFirst's weekend courses cost over $1,600 apiece), and plenty of trainers simply don't have that kind of cash burning a hole in their pockets. 

But even among those who do have lots of certifications, it's usually the case that they do little to help them become successful trainers. I once worked with an enthusiastic woman embarking on her new personal training career after being certified through RKC. RKC, which you've likely only heard of if you're in the industry, is a kettlebell instructor certification. The fact that few outside the industry even know what kettlebells are, much less what RKC is, means that she quickly faced a tough reality check over the lack of interest in kettlebell instruction. 

Onnit, a fitness and supplement company based in Texas, offers a number of certifications that include "Foundations" (a biomechanics and movement course), kettlebells, steel maces, barbells, and... battle ropes. Yes, battle ropes:

Now don't get me wrong, battle ropes are lots of fun and I've used them with my clients for years. But how many prospective personal training clients are holding out for a trainer whose an expert with battle ropes? How much battle rope programming does a trainer really think they can get away with before the client gets bored?

The importance of education

It's important to emphasize that I'm not knocking continuing education. By all means, spend some money and work under a coach who is an expert in barbells, kettlebells, steel maces, or even battle ropes. If you can afford them and you don't expect a return on investment, by all means grab the certifications. However, most of these organizations offer various seminars that only cost a fraction of their certification courses. Remember StrongFirst and their $1,600 certification courses? An all-day seminar, sans certification, in which you can learn their teaching methods, is only $300. Save the other $1300 to reinvest in marketing, apparel, or other seminars. Heck, go twice! You'll still save $1,000. 

Often, simply hiring a coach for a while is more cost-effective and beneficial than attending expensive seminars for certifications no one outside the industry has heard of. For example, I worked for six months under the guidance of an Olympic weightlifting coach who has trained several national record holders. He does not hold any 'official' Olympic weightlifting coaching credentials, and nor do I. The USAW offers certifications for Olympic weightlifting instruction; a friend of mine attended (it cost him $500) and said that almost no one at the seminar had experience in the sport and could demonstrate proficiency in the lifts—but they walked out with a coaching certification nonetheless. 

A good trainer will be dedicated to their own continuing education—through reading and research, attending seminars, collaborating with other trainers, and working under the guidance of other coaches. But trainers should be cautious in chasing additional certifications—most likely, it will be for your own edification and not present much return on investment. The public is simply too out of touch with the industry to know or care about the innumerable certifications out there. Get one if you are passionate about learning what is taught, and the cost is comfortably within your means. But don't chase one certification after another in the misguided expectation that it will further your business—your personal story, your referrals, and your ability to quickly demonstrate your expertise will take you much farther than a laundry list of certifications. 

[styrkagym]

How to Find a Good Personal Trainer

Finding a good personal trainer is hard. Most of them are young, reasonably fit, and poorly paid. Wait, what? Poorly paid? Personal training, for most aspiring young trainers, is most certainly not a lucrative profession. It's not unusual for corporate gyms and private personal training studios pocket the overwhelming majority of trainer pay—somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters—and trainers have virtually no guarantee of a steady clientele. It shouldn't be surprising that long-term retention in the industry is very low; plenty of young trainers decide, after scraping by for a few years, that it's time to get a 'real job'.

The free market works for trainers, too: well-qualified, experienced trainers are generally a bit older and can command a higher price premium. It's highly likely that experienced trainers decide that they're rather not work at a corporate gym with draconian sales quotas and, if they're lucky, a 50% split on client fees. That's precisely why, when you go to most commercial gyms and franchise training studios, the trainers are young and inexperienced: they cost less. It's easier to get away with the promise of a robust career than to actually pay a well-qualified trainer. 

Ironically, it may actually be less expensive to connect with an experienced freelance trainer, because they only have to cover their overhead. That's not to say personal training is ever cheap—as a rule, expect to budget the value of an extra car payment each month, somewhere in the $400-$600 range—but when you hire a trainer at your neighborhood corporate gym, you are paying the gym; when a trainer is freelance, you are paying your trainer directly. Often, small gyms will offer trainers a booth-rental type situation or simply skim a small fee from each session. Either situation allows the trainer to take home a much higher percentage of their session fee, which may allow them to undercut corporate gyms. 

Becoming a personal trainer is not difficult

Prospective clients often fail to realize that becoming a "certified personal trainer" is not particularly difficult. The trainer may or may not have a degree in the field, but even if they do it's unlikely to have much practical value. They may have a nationally accredited certification such as NASM, NSCA, ACE, or ACSM; but attaining those certifications requires little more than a few months of textbook reading and passing a multiple-choice exam. Better certifications, like the various StrongFirst specialilties, MovNat, or Starting Strength, require trainers to demonstrate proficiency in real-world movements, and they are often assessed on their ability to coach as well. But it's unlikely that anyone outside of the fitness industry has heard of these certifications, and there are many excellent trainers who do not have them.

At the bottom of the barrel are the endless array of cheap online certifications. The American Sports and Fitness Association offers a wide variety of unaccredited online courses for which the trainer does not pay unless they pass. Given that the ASFA needs to make money, how often do you think that trainers fail these online tests? Some trainers may have worthless "in house" certifications from their place of employment. 

Separating the wheat from the chaff

Experienced trainers are hard to come by, especially in corporate gyms. Personal training credentials are relatively easy to obtain. And unless you know exactly what you're looking for, you probably have no idea what the various personal training certifications even mean. Onnit, for example, offers a $1,000 certification course for a Battle Ropes Instructor. Are you, the prospective client, really holding out for someone who's super knowledgeable about battle ropes? 

One of the simplest ways to find a good trainer is to avoid corporate gyms. Few trainers who are well-qualified will be paid what they are worth at such a facility, and if they are it will likely come at a tremendous upfront cost since the club wants to make money, too. Always look toward smaller, locally owned gyms (like Styrka, of course!). This is absolutely not to suggest that well-qualified trainers cannot be found at corporate gyms, but you are most likely going to be stuck paying $600 a month to work under the guidance of someone who is barely out of college and probably doesn't know a whole lot more about exercise than you do. 

Once you've contacted a personal trainer, there are some worthwhile questions to ask:

What is your education and experience?

Do you have any specializations? 

What types of clients do you typically work with?

Do you have experience working with clients with limitations similar to mine?

What would a typical 1-month program look like? What about 3-month? (This is a valuable question to ask so the trainer demonstrates that they understand structured programming, and won't just throw random workouts at you.)

What can I expect out of our sessions?

If you feel like the trainer is a good fit for you, it's time to talk about money. Regardless of the trainer's rates, you should never feel pressured to spend a lot of money right off the bat. Ask if they will provide an introductory session either free or for a discounted rate. Keep in mind that if the trainer understands good programming, this may not be a particularly grueling workout; it's really just a chance for you to get to see them in action—a good trainer should be patient, offer encouragement, explain the rationale behind their instructions, give you their undivided attention, and promptly offer correction or alternatives if a movement causes pain. 

Do not be afraid to ask around and try free sessions with a few different trainers. Personal training partnerships can last months, years, or even lifetimes—so it's worth finding someone with whom you feel comfortable. Once you've decided, I recommend a three-month initial commitment, at no fewer than three sessions per week. The trainer may be happy to let you divide the payment in monthly intervals, but committing to three months shows that you are fully invested in your health and are willing to trust the trainer enough to let them guide you toward lasting results. 

Transitioning from personal training

Because personal training is expensive, for many clients it is not a financially viable long-term commitment. Perhaps three months is all you can afford. That's okay! There are lots of other options. At Styrka, we offer Individual Coaching, which is one-on-one remote personal training. Alternately, your trainer may be able to write a program for you and just meet occasionally for a check-in and reassessment. It's always difficult for a trainer to lose a client, but ceasing private sessions need not mean the end of the partnership. 

Of course, we have a wide array of experienced, independent personal trainers here at Stykra. 

[styrkagym]

Against the WOD Culture

You've seen it before: before the class, the coach jots down a workout on a whiteboard. It may follow a common protocol, such as:

Warm-Up

Skill

Strength

Metabolic Conditioning

Cool-Down

Within that framework, the exercises vary in mostly random fashion. And not just the exercises—the sets, reps, and rest intervals are randomized as well. So one day you're squatting heavy with a barbell for 5 sets of 5 reps. But then you might not repeat that squat protocol for 4, 6, or 8 weeks. In between you'll do lots of other kinds of squatting (wall balls, overhead squats, pistol squats etc.), but there's no consistent application of the exercise prescription.

This is the essence of what I refer to as WOD Culture: the "workout of the day." Popularized by CrossFit but imitated by countless others, WOD Culture is a pervasive force in our modern fitness culture. It's easy to see why: it's actually not very difficult for a relatively inexperienced trainer to put together a brutally demanding workout. For example, following the skeleton protocol above, I'll randomly put this together:

Bodyweight squats, hip hinges, and shoulder dislocates, 3 sets of 10 each

Pistol Squat instruction

Deadlift, build to a maximum triple

Ladder 10 to 1 of two-arm kettlebell snatches and pull-ups, done for time

1 kilometer row

That could probably be done in an hour pretty easily, and it'd be really hard—especially if you use enough weight for the snatches and/or you're not very good at pull-ups. And for clients spending their hard-earned money on a personal trainer or coach, that's the appeal: it feels like you've accomplished something. It was a brutal workout, but you did it! Great job! You're hot, sweaty, and tired, and you get a nice endorphin kick from the fatigue to give you that coveted post-workout high. 

But where does this workout fit in with your overall goals? What specifically is it doing to get you there? Are you getting progressively stronger? How do you know? Is your work capacity objectively increasing? How do you know? 

Mark Rippetoe, founder of Starting Strength, famously opined that there is a difference between exercising and training. Training is structured. It takes into account your needs, abilities, and goals, and gives you a concrete plan to achieve them. Success is planned—not accidental. The latter, by contrast, is haphazardly tossed together with little or no long-term structure. 

Clients in the general public, simply because they don't know any better, can easily confuse tough workouts for effective workouts. Effective workouts might, on any given day, not be particularly exhausting. Other days, they might put you on the floor. But in a sound training program, the coach understands that intensity must necessarily be varied; loads, rep, ranges, and exercises may indeed change, but they change methodically—not randomly. 

For example, let's say that a coach wants to increase an athlete's tolerance to higher-volume training. Research indicates that increases in volume are highly effective for increasing strength [1], but it takes time for the athlete to acclimate to the neurological and metabolic demands of increased volume. So as volume increases, loads should initially decrease. Over time, loads can be increased—first across a small number of total sets, and gradually across a higher number of total sets. If the coach simply increases the volume without adjusting the load, the athlete will quickly experience symptoms of overtraining. When workouts are essentially randomized as they are in WOD Culture, there's no way to plan for acclimation to increased volume. So the athlete will experience unusual fatigue on high-volume days, and average or low fatigue on lower-volume days. How do you know the athlete is improving? Without concrete metrics, it's impossible to say.

There's an important caveat here: that randomized workouts can still be productive and effective. They're not a waste of time, per se; they're just not the most efficient use of time. A good coach can still make workouts fun and interesting without abandoning planned progress through well-structured program design. But coaches do have the responsibility to educate their athletes on what to expect from such a program, and often what the athlete associates with strength and fitness is driven by cultural norms and social pressure rather than sound science and experienced coaching. Let's educate and guide our clients rather than kowtow to misguided expectations.

[styrkagym]

WolfPack Workout with Ashley Day

Join NASM-certified personal trainer and USPA record-holding powerlifter Ashley Day for an intense strength-training session at Styrka. Few things will help you improve your technique and learn to push yourself to the limits like training with a pro! Ashley's clients can drop in for $5; guests are just $10.