ALL THINGS Q&A FOR TRAINING AND PROGRAMMING.
Question 1:
What would you describe as “science based programming”? A lot of trainers prompt that now.
In short, to claim something is science based or evidence based, THERE NEEDS TO BE SIGNIFICANT SCIENCE BASED EVIDENCE TO BACK THE CLAIM.
There need to have been scientific studies performed, proving the tactic or method to be true or false. Ideally, there are several studies that back the claim.
I mean it’s 2000 freaking 19 and the other day I was reading an article in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (which I have access to through my NSCA membership) about leg and hip muscle activity during the back squat, Romanian deadlift and hip thrust. It found that the squats had significantly higher levels of quad activity because of the knee flexion and extension involved. And the hip thrust has the highest glute max activity. The Romanian deadlift had the highest hamstring activity.
We know this right?!
Those are claims we can say are science based, or evidence based training methods.
Example: You’re pairing hip thrusts and RDLs because you’re targeting the hamstrings and glutes. That would be evidence based training.
There are also methods I have to mention that may not have been tested and published in a scientific journal, but THEY WORK. And that’s that.
For instance, the heart rate or energy systems development used by Joel Jamieson. This is the type of conditioning I use with my clients and Built By Annie programming.
There are six different types of conditioning all based on targeting and increasing your body's energy system's thresholds in an a-lactic, anaerobic and aerobic. These methods have been effectively used and tested on athletes for YEARS. There is data to show for it. We can see heart rate variability improving, resting heart rates decreasing, thresholds increasing etc. BUT, I can’t say for sure if there are specified studies to support Joel’s specific methods.
If someone is claiming “science” or evidence based training methods, take responsibility and ask questions. Ask how it’s science based, ask what’s the science behind their method. Hopefully you can see it within their other content.
Also, the more science you read yourself, the more you’ll be able to piece things together and kind of start to see common trends within the science. Compound movements are efficient for working large amount of muscle groups and have a high metabolic demand. Hip thrusts work your glutes more than squats. You don’t have to pull maximal loads to retain strength and so on.
Question 2:
Mobility/accessory work. How do you choose certain movements? Is there a resource?
For mobility and accessory work, there are a few things that go into deciding that.
I typically go off three things: the main movement, the goal of that movement (get strong, build muscle, increase capacity), and the individual (if that is part of the equation). If individuality is not a part of the equation then I’ll go off of my knowledge and experience with the masses. Right? What do MOST people need? What will MOST people likely benefit from when it comes to mobility and accessory work.
First - the main movement of the day.
Then plug in mobility and accessory work accordingly. Generally speaking.
Say you have a squat day and back squat is the main lift. We know back squat is a knee dominant, lower body compound movement.
I tend towards strength and hypertrophy based accessory work for the lower body (glutes, hamstrings and quads). Make sure there is some single leg work in there - lunges, Cossacks, split squats, step ups.
You can also choose hip or knee dominant with the accessory work. All depends on the goals of the program. If you’re going hip dominant and hypertrophy then you’ll see hip thrusts and RDL work, and maybe some single leg hip thrusts or deep step ups or pull up machine step downs. By the way,
