Developing a Training Philosophy

by Alwyn Cosgrove

Knives vs. Missiles

“If you put a group of the most successful strength coaches
in one room and their students in another, the students wouldn’t
agree on any training philosophy or principle, whereas the coaches
would agree on almost everything.”

I’ve said a couple of times that people tend to focus too
much on the differences between coaches’ philosophies rather than
the similarities, where the real information is.

For example, I don’t think there’s a single successful
coach who thinks that frequency, intensity, and overload aren’t
valid training principles. Or one who feels that basic compound
free weight exercises shouldn’t be the cornerstone of your
strength program.

And everyone agrees that a shitty program done with good form
and intensity will outperform the perfect, periodized routine done
with shitty form and zero intensity.

At a seminar I attended recently, Mike Boyle mentioned that
there are a lot of people out there who want to subscribe to a
training philosophy, but very few who actually take the time to
develop one. This was one of those “ah-ha” moments for
me. I began to think of how I developed my own training philosophy
and how I could share that with readers looking to do the
same.

One of Mike’s own examples was that he has discontinued
back squats with his athletes in favor of front squats based on
what he’s witnessed over the years as a coach.

Whether I or you or Internetstud123 agrees is unlikely to sway
Mike. What is probably true though is that given
the same experiences, and the same athletes, over the same period
of time, most of us may have come to similar
conclusions.

A training philosophy is shaped from your own observations,
experiences, and studies. You can’t say “that’s wrong”
because unless you have the exact same experiences, you’re coming
from a different reference point.

Which is a better weapon, a knife or a missile? At three feet,
it’s a knife. At one mile it’s a missile. Different
reference points, right?

My Philosophy

I guess my philosophy is still the Bruce Lee line: “Absorb
what is useful; reject what is useless.” I’m sure you’re
all sick of hearing that.

I don’t have an “angle.” I’m not the EDT guy, I’m
not the total body guy, I’m not the HSS-100 guy, and I’m
not the mobility guy.

In fact, in the first interview I
did for T-Nation, Chris Shugart asked me what my training
philosophy was. Here was my answer:

“Why do I have to be a functional training guy? Or an Olympic
lifting guy or a Westside guy? Am I a HIT guy? No. Does that mean
I’m a low intensity guy then? Absolutely not. I’m all of those and
I’m none of those. I’m a results guy. I guess my philosophy is
‘Results by Design, Not by Coincidence.’ Get the best
results in the least amount of time. The faster I can get results,
the more I get paid.”

And I guess that’s it in a nutshell. I’m only
interested in using tools and methods that can produce the intended
result faster than any other method.

With all this said, here are some of the ideas that have shaped
my philosophy and will continue to have an influence on me, and
some of the things that you need to consider when developing your
own.

Warning: Keyboard warriors take note — these are based on my
experiences. If your experiences are different, you will, based on those differences,
have come to a different conclusion. That doesn’t mean you’re right
and I’m wrong, just that we have different experiences that have influenced
us.

Idea #1: Look at the Majority

I’ll throw out some theoretical numbers here. Probably
around 80-90% of the population, 80-90% of the time, will respond
best to total body workouts. And I’d say that maybe 90-95% of
the population, 90-95% of the time, will respond best to either
total body or an upper and lower split.

This is something that I’m unlikely to be swayed on. In my
own experience (and in the experiences of the coaches I respect),
this is what I’ve found over time to be true. Now, the numbers
may not be exact, but if you read what I said as “the majority
of people,” you’ll see what I mean.

–>

But also make sure to read my entire statement. I’m also
saying that 10-20% of the population will
not respond best to total body workouts, and that 10-20% of the time these
programs won’t work.There’s definitely room in my philosophy for other
approaches, but I’m comfortable with the “most of the people, most of the
time” part.

Recently, the whole split routine vs. total body vs. body parts
argument has been hotly debated on this site. The problem is, there
can’t be an answer that’s 100% correct, 100% of the time, for 100%
of people.

Ask yourself if an advanced, genetically gifted, full-time
professional bodybuilder falls into my 95% of the population? No
way! But ask yourself what a 40-year-old female beginner who could
train only twice a week would respond best to? She falls into the
middle of the majority, right?

What I’ve found amusing though is that it seems 90% of people
think that they’re in the advanced 10%. As John Berardi once
said:

“Even at an elite level of athleticism, there are only 10%
of people who need to stress over the details. Most people think
they’re there when they’re not. You have to understand whether
you’re a part of the 90% or the 10%.”

Overall I think most people will agree with the point I’m
making, but the smaller minded ones will argue about the
percentages. That’s cool though. Lets me know quickly who’s
worth talking to.

Idea #2: Think of the Average (because that’s where the big
picture is)

What a pro-bodybuilder or professional athlete responds best to
has little meaning for most of us. Most of us aren’t at elite
levels. Most of your clients aren’t at elite levels. So develop
concepts based on what works, most of the time, for the average person.

For example, over time I’ve found that a drug-free
individual with a job or school, training for size, needs to work a
muscle more than once a week for optimal results. And that same
individual usually doesn’t recover from more than two
back-to-back weight training workouts effectively.

A program that works for a steroid-using athlete training six
days per week won’t work for a drug-free father of two who works 40
hours a week and gets to the gym for three hours total… or
vice versa.

A program that works great to physically prepare a 17-year-old
figure skater for a regional championship won’t work to prepare a
super-heavyweight powerlifter for the WPO’s… or vice
versa.

Here’s an interesting thing I’ve also witnessed: when it
comes to isolation exercises, the average person seems to respond
better to one set of three different exercises than to three sets
of a single exercise. Just my observation.

But I just read a quote from Luke Wood (IFBB pro) who stated
that he felt his calves responded better to 8-9 sets of one
exercise rather than multiple exercises. Does that mean one of us
is wrong? No, just that our philosophies are different based on our
own experiences.

For most of us, understanding what works for the average person
will generally yield far greater rewards than focusing on what
works for the few.

Idea #3: Respect the Laws of Physiology

Training is a physiological stimulus. Therefore you must have a
physiological basis for your training philosophy. For example, if
you don’t apply overload in your training program, you
won’t progress. These are basics.

I have no problem with you doing an intense aerobic program. But
if you’re doing an intense aerobic program to gain arm size,
then you’re breaking the laws of physiology. Similarly, I have
no problem with five day splits or any such sequence of training
your body. I’ll confess though that I still have a problem
with “body part” based splits.

I’ve read the Weider system and Arnold’s book.
I’ve read pretty much every fitness and bodybuilding magazine
that’s been released over the past twelve years. I still can’t see any rhyme or reason to the
allocation of body parts to a training day. It seems completely
arbitrary to me. That doesn’t mean split training is wrong or
doesn’t work; I just can’t see how there are any solid
guidelines there based on physiology. It’s hard
to shape a philosophy around that.

Do I use further splits than just upper/lower? Of course. But
(similar to Ian King) I’m concerned with loading parameters through
each joint and prefer to use a loading classification that takes
that into account to help prevent non-impact injuries. So I try to
match antagonistic joint movements within each workout (e.g.
horizontal push and pull around the shoulder
girdle).

Is this a better way? Who knows? But at the very least it’s
based on joint and muscle action and movement (i.e. physiology and
biomechanics) and it’s been a great way to practically
eliminate all training induced injuries with our
clients.

Idea #4: It’s Not About Equipment

A tool isn’t a training philosophy. You can’t be a
“kettlebell guy” or a “Swiss ball guy.” That
makes no sense. Kettlebells are a tool, a weight; they are not a
training philosophy.

You can’t build an entire approach to training around a piece of
equipment. There’s no physiology there. You can only build
that system around the human body.

And for the last time, kettlebells, Swiss balls, chains, logs,
sandbags etc, are not things you do. They are things you buy. Develop your ideas regardless of your access to
equipment.

Idea #5: Time Management Comes First

Real world time commitments should definitely be a factor in
shaping your philosophy. The bulk of my clients over the years have
been athletes and regular people. For a national level bodybuilder,
or any athlete for that matter, training is a way of life. Their
entire eating, moving, and sleeping habits are built around
supporting their training.

I have a client who’s a doctor. His life does not and cannot be
designed to support his workouts. Similarly, most people I’ve
worked with have had serious time commitment issues. They can only
get to the gym for three hours per week, or can only get two
sessions in per week because of practices and game schedules. So
over the years I’ve come to realize that there are certain
things I’d like to do with clients that just aren’t
practical due to time.

One of those is straight sets. I can rarely do them. For time
management reasons, I always use the alternating set system. I’ve
yet to hear a convincing argument for the superiority of straight
sets in the situations I described. I tend to do exercise one for a
set, rest 60 seconds or so, exercise two for a set, rest 60 seconds
or so, and continue.

I think that when designing programs you should start with the
time available first and then develop a program
around it. Don’t develop your program and then try to fit it
into the available time.

Idea #6: Know What “Advanced” Really Is

You have to be advanced before you do an
advanced program. A 140 pound 14-year-old kid doesn’t need Jay
Cutler’s program, just as a JV basketball player doesn’t
need an NBA All Star’s current routine.

Most of the time, people are looking for advanced routines
before they’re ready. I received an email once from a guy asking
how I’d adjust a fat loss program I’d written for an “advanced
individual” such as himself. When I inquired as to his stats, it
turns out this “advanced” guy was 160 pounds at 22% body fat.

Just because you’ve posted on a website 5000 times
doesn’t make you advanced.

So when working on your own philosophy, you may need to
differentiate for advanced individuals. It’s true that the
method used to take you from a 315 pound squat to a 405 pound squat
might not work to take you to a 495 pound squat, but again, there
will be more similarities than differences.

Idea #7: Stand on the Shoulders of Giants

Don’t ignore the lessons of those that have gone before you.
This can save you a lot of time and effort and help “fast
track” you. You don’t have to start from
scratch.

For example, I greatly respect Eric Cressey and Mike Boyle. Eric
only graduated college about three years ago. Mike was a full time
strength coach before Eric was born. If Mike and Eric disagree on
something, then generally Mike’s experience
has more weight. (It doesn’t mean Eric’s opinion is
worthless; it’s just that 25 years of practical experience
tends to count for a lot more as far I’m concerned.)

Note: This has become too much of a Mike Boyle appreciation
society bulletin. So in the interests of balance — Mike
sucks.

Keep that in mind when shaping your own ideas. Steal. Steal and modify. It’s not
“cheating” to use the experiences of others to better
yourself. As Tony Robbins says, “Whether you want happiness,
financial independence, better relationships, or your dream body,
know that somewhere someone mastered this area. And by modeling
what they did, you too can experience the same
results.”

Idea #8: Form is King

For the majority (there, I said that word again), a focus on
excellent technique when lifting is paramount.

Yes, I know that [insert pro bodybuilder here] on his DVD just
throws the weights around and looks great. But as I’ve
said, you are unlikely to benefit from blindly
following that approach because you aren’t a
pro-bodybuilder. In fact, you’re more likely to get injured than
get jacked.

Ignoring proper technique as the foundation for your exercise
programs is a huge mistake.

Idea #9: Exercise Selection

Just as Mike prefers the front squat to the back squat, and
Charles Poliquin prefers the dumbbell row to the barbell row, you
must also have some general guidelines when it comes to exercise
selection.

Here are some of mine:

• Bodyweight variations before external loading

• Ground based

• Standing variations instead of seated

• Free weights rather than machines.

We also tend to favor a hierarchy of exercises, where a chin-up
is always selected over a lat pulldown (we use flex bands when we
need to get more reps). And we make sure to target all the primary
movement patterns — squat, lunge, bend, push, pull, and
twist.

So develop a general hierarchy of exercises. If time is tight,
do you need back squats, front squats, sissy squats, hack squats,
and leg presses? If you only had time for one, which one would it
be? Think like that with regards to all movements and muscle
groups.

I think most people will end up with an array of exercises that
are predominantly compound free weight movements with a few
isolation exercises and maybe a few machines. And it’s fair to
say that regardless of your goal, that will probably serve you
well.

Idea #10: TiVo the Workout

TiVo is a digital video recorder that allows you to tape shows
and watch them later.

The beauty of it is that you can watch a one hour show, cut out
the commercials, titles, and credits, and get all the meat of the show in about 40 minutes. In other
words, you eliminate the BS. You can either watch the same amount
of TV in less time or you can get more TV in.

So one of my philosophies is to try to eliminate the BS in the
workouts. Time the rest periods to make sure they aren’t too
short or too long. Sequence the exercises to maximize the benefits
and eliminate any redundant movements. This allows us to shorten
the workout and get out of the gym faster, or to find more time for
some more exercises.

Eliminate any redundancy or wasted time in your or your clients’
workouts.

Idea #11: Assess, Assess, Assess

If one year ago you were 205 pounds and 15% body fat and now
you’re 206 at 14% body fat, unless your goal was to
“maintain,” then your training program and philosophy
needs an overhaul.

If for five years you’ve tried to qualify for the nationals
in your sport and failed — and always used X training and Y diet
— then it’s fairly likely that X training plus Y diet will
fail again this year. Your plan didn’t work and is unlikely to
magically start working now.

I think a training philosophy is a dynamic process and never
ends. You may have read something of mine from a year ago that
contradicts what I’m saying now. I’m fine with that.
I’m still a student and reserve the right to learn and
continually let my thinking evolve. In fact, if you haven’t
changed your mind about something over time, then I worry about
you.

Make sure you keep records and continuously assess the results
of your programs. Refine them constantly.

Idea #12: Tweak, Tweak, Tweak

I’ve talked a lot about the majority and developing a philosophy
to target your client groups. But what if you
are the only client? Then you need to individualize and tweak your philosophy
so that you know what works for you.

Establish where you are. Are you advanced? A beginner? How much
time can you commit to training? Who’s started from a similar place
as you, with similar conditions, and already reached the goals
you’ve set? Who has trained people like that? What are the
commonalities of the programs and the approaches? What can you take
home and use to help shape your own philosophy and design your own
program?

If you hire me as your trainer, I’m constantly asking for
feedback. Our goal is to use both our minds
together to develop a strategy to help you reach your
goals.

I don’t know you. Everything I decide to do with you is a
guess. Granted, it’s an educated guess based on several years
experience, but it’s still just a guess. You have
to tell me if this routine hurts your knees, isn’t working for
you, or leaves you too tired to do anything else all day and we will adjust it. Training is a process, not a
prescription. A good coach is always interested in what his clients
have to say.

The idea is to use your experience plus the coach’s experience to reach new heights.
You came in with a problem and together we’re looking for a
solution. But I need to know what you’ve tried in the past
— what’s worked and what hasn’t.

Don’t ignore your own knowledge. Don’t ignore
anyone’s in fact. If a writer says, “Dips are the best
upper-body exercise” they probably mean “for most people,
most of the time.” Don’t follow that blindly.

For you, dips might hurt like hell and just leave you
with sore shoulders. Only you know. So take that advice and tweak
it based on your own (or your clients’) experiences.

Summary

The bottom line is you have to look at everything critically,
with an open mind, and see the pros and cons of every approach.
Question everything, but first look at everything. As Mike Boyle
says, don’t believe everything you read, but definitely
don’t just read everything you believe.

Overall, develop a philosophy first and a program
second. Remember the basic training principles and laws of
physiology. Analyze goals and objectives and put the pieces
together.

In closing, it’s back to Bruce:

“Use no way as way, use no limitation as your
limitation.”

And…

“Liberate yourself from the classical
mess.”