Alwyn Writes a Good One.

[OldGuy]

Alwyn's Seven Haibts

Very interesting A lot of food for thought. Maybe I've been approaching this wrong.

[Ogedei]

Excellent article.

Unfortunately that place has such a body building mentality, which the article is clearly not aimed at, it is falling on alot of deaf ears.

Thanks for the post OG

Og.

[Jean-Paul]

Great article! I always love reading his stuff.

[TrainingGirl]

Thanks for posting OG. I love Alwyn's articles as well.

[dmw]

"An imbalance in volume like this, left unaddressed, will end up causing a major shoulder girdle problem."

Reading stuff like this 5 years ago could have saved me some ups and downs. I say "could have" because it still woulda been on me to actually follow the advice.

[LeafofDeath]

Originally posted by Ogedei:
Excellent article.

Unfortunately that place has such a body building mentality, which the article is clearly not aimed at, it is falling on alot of deaf ears.

Alwyn has been extremely well received at T-Nation.

[Kaiser]

More and more of what I read, including much of what is in this article, leads me to believe trying a Crossfit type program is simply a good decision.

[eastcoastsurfer]

Good article. I've really latched onto the planes of motion concept and have been working hard to have a close balance between the various antagonistic planes.

[Buk]

Originally posted by Kaiser:
More and more of what I read, including much of what is in this article, leads me to believe trying a Crossfit type program is simply a good decision.

And how often do you read something that makes you believe that it would be a bad idea? It seems to be becoming more and more accepted every week. The science(historians as I heard them called in an article somewhere) will be close behind.

[LeafofDeath]

I defintely think that Crossfit is outstanding, but I don't think it's really your best bet if your primary goal is body composition change. Discuss.

[Bill2380]

Here's some info from the Cross Fit website, see 1.5. http://www.mitymous.net/weights/xfitfaq.htm#19

[kuri]

Great article! I love Alwyn's use of MMA as an example of progression based on performance and the eschewing of dogmatic principles.

Having recently begun Xfit workouts in earnest I've been surprised at basic deficiencies in my fitness level. You won't be seeing me in the UFC. Not yet anyway

[Kaiser]

Originally posted by Buk:
And how often do you read something that makes you believe that it would be a bad idea? It seems to be becoming more and more accepted every week. The science(historians as I heard them called in an article somewhere) will be close behind.

Well, most historic periodized programs have been based in the bodybuilding past. I've always been interested in performance over aesthetics, so I guess Crossfit is built for someone like me. Now I just gotta start.... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[wingsfan]

it's a good article but i would agree with most of the responses on that site that the most controversial part of the article is the issue of balanced volume between antagonistic muscle groups, more specifically, the bench press and the row.

his statement that ideally you would want the same set, reps, and load the on both i think contradicts other statements that he's made on the topic from other articles he's written (there's no way i'd be able to find a quote on this out of the million newletters i've gotten from him over the last couple of years). but, if i really had to guess, because of space constraints on this article, he probably couldn't get into more detail.

[DKing]

Originally posted by wingsfan:
it's a good article but i would agree with most of the responses on that site that the most controversial part of the article is the issue of balanced volume between antagonistic muscle groups, more specifically, the bench press and the row.

his statement that ideally you would want the same set, reps, and load the on both i think contradicts other statements that he's made on the topic from other articles he's written (there's no way i'd be able to find a quote on this out of the million newletters i've gotten from him over the last couple of years). but, if i really had to guess, because of space constraints on this article, he probably couldn't get into more detail.

If I remember right from his past writting, its not that he wants you to use the exact same load, sets, and reps, its that even if you balance number of sets and reps, total volume to the muscles is usually still off.

For example lets say I can bench press 200 lbs for 10 reps. I do three sets. Thats a total tonnage of 6000 (10x3x200). Then so I have equal balance in movement planes I do 3x10 with bent over rows. But I can only bet row 150 lbs. So the total tonnage there is 4500 (3x10x150). Even though the sets and reps are even the back is getting much less overall work.

At least thats how I remember seeing it. If I am wrong I apologize to Alwyn and hope he doesn't hurt me.

Danny

[DKing]

Forgot to add:

If you simply add a 4th set to the bent over rows you now have and equal total volume of 6000 for each group.

Danny

[eastcoastsurfer]

Wingsfan,
The problem I think is that there aren't any planes of motion that are completely antagonistic. Bench and row are probably close but not exact. I think what Alwyn was trying to show is that balance is key. If you have someone who is benching over 300lbs but can barely row 135 then you have a balance problem. It doesn't mean that you should have weights always matching up pound for pound, but that your workout intensity should be the same across your entire body (even outside of the antagonistic muscles).

[wingsfan]

danny,

when i first started reading the section of the article on this, i thought he was going into that exact direction, that the loads and reps don't have to be the same, it's just that the end volume (load x set x rep) should be the same. it was then that i was surprised at his first sentence in the second paragraph below:

If, for example, you're doing 2 sets of 10 reps in the bench press, and 2 sets of 10 reps in the seated row, this isn't necessarily balanced. You could be pressing with 200 pounds — that's a total volume of 4000 pounds — and rowing with only 150, a total volume of 3000 pounds. This is actually a major imbalance and would need to be addressed. An imbalance in volume like this, left unaddressed, will end up causing a major shoulder girdle problem.

In an ideal situation we'd be using the same sets, reps, and loads in all antagonistic movement patterns, unless of course we were purposefully using volume to create an imbalance in order to correct an existing one. It's also important, although beyond the scope of this article, to understand that other motor qualities, including flexibility and cardio respiratory endurance, also need to be considered in the total scheme of programming.