The Philosophical Approach To Strength

 

Through our time as personal trainers we have listened to and read a lot about how to achieve maximal strength gains by proper periodization i.e. Linear, Conjugate, Concurrent. But even after studying, researching and applying these methods we feel we are becoming more and more philosophical in our approach. Whilst progressing as personal trainers, working with many clients of different backgrounds and training ourselves we still seem to ask: Which is best? Even though these methods are based on the science of adaptation, does the science behind each theory allow for optimal gains? Each method is a theory that has been tried and tested. Each one has had results, each one has their plus and negative points and people will end up tying themselves into a certain method. We’ve all been there, we end up believing that a certain method is the gospel truth and we end up forgetting or worse, ignoring everything else out there. Having spent our time in the “trenches” and researched so much text we never married ourselves into one method because it always made us ask another question. (Ok maybe we are lying a bit here, but we did end up keeping an open mind eventually) It has become apparent that in our quest to find the most efficient and effective way to increase strength/fitness that a lot of the highly regarded text that we studied on the above methods is somewhat cloudy, meaning we have a lot of questions that we’re unsure can be answered.

At PFT our mission as trainers has always been and always will continue to become the best, most knowledgeable trainers in the world. This is why we do what we do; this is why we have dedicated our lives to the research and application of optimal strength and health. As we progress and gain experience as trainers (yep, we are still learning) we have noticed the more we learn, the more we feel we don’t know. (Starting to sound like crazy talk init!)

Why is it that the theory and the practise of training are so different from each other? Why is it when we read or research findings written by highly regarded strength coaches and sports scientists that what they are conveying is so different from the text they would have read and studied to be able to write and understand their programmes they have just written? I guess what we are saying is the science of the training and the training itself just doesn’t match. Most of the time it seems that when we are talking or learning it feels like it’s a different language we are trying to learn, but when what is trying to be expressed is applied, it all ends up so simple. More to the point it feels like that after the science of training, the application is so simple. Many times we have ended up asking ourselves after reading a book “So is that it? So after all the principles of overload, periodization, supercompensation, specificity and so on, this is all they are trying to say?” So does this mean as coaches/trainers we are trying to overcomplicate things? Bruce Lee was right when he said, “simple and direct is best” but nowadays we’re not so sure if that is being applied within the industry.

As trainers, after we assess the body for strengths/weaknesses and set goals and create a plan for the athlete/client what else is there? Now, we are not naive and are preaching that anyone can train anyone, researching and understanding the human body is THE MOST important thing any trainer will have to learn because, without being too blunt, the human body is what you are working with. Yes we are more knowledgeable, yes we can apply all that we have learned but “the most efficient and effective way to increase strength” question is still a mystery. It feels like the more we learn that the more questions we are asking and there doesn’t seem to be an answer for them.

All training is based on the level of ability of the individual, theories of adaption change depending on the individual, so this is what we want to know; if a beginner athlete pretty much adapts to anything you give him or her and a more advanced athlete requires a more precise periodized programme at which point is the transition? Is the progression from a novice to intermediate to advance to elite athlete as clean cut as it is written to be? How do we determine what is ‘really’ a beginner and what is really ‘an elite athlete’. And although there is text out there that tells us there will be difference in strength due to different environments be it external or internal, does it actually matter that much?

I guess this is what you call the evolution of training, as the more we learn and the more we apply the human body adapts and changes. Therefore, if the environment is forever changing the methods of training will evolve too. What is clear though is attitude. Regardless of methods, science and practice of strength training and development of human energy systems, attitude will always be the driving force of achieving the results in which the client desires. We have seen many people who apply programmes that are absolutely ‘spot-on’ yet their results are mediocre. We have also seen some people who have programmes, which absolutely suck, yet their gains are amazing. Some people try to find an excuse and put it down to genetics etc. but really it’s all about attitude. I guess what we are saying is: create your environment, ‘zone out’, have attitude and achieve the results which some people see as being unachievable. Develop your own philosophy on training. Are you training to just tick over? Wanting to lose a little bit of weight? Be less lethargic? Are you wanting to tone and firm up? Or are you training to become stronger and develop your weaknesses, become faster, be more athletic and have a more efficient cardio-respiratory system? Ask yourself where does your attitude lie?