The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Program Design
A Unified Theory of Fitness Programming
by Alwyn Cosgrove

The Legacy of Lee

"Absorb what is useful; reject what is useless." — Bruce Lee

For
those of you who've been living under a rock for the past thirty years,
Bruce Lee was (and is still) the most well know martial artist that has
ever lived. Bruce Lee died in 1973. That was over 31 years ago, yet he
arguably has made a bigger impact on the martial arts world than any
other single individual. To
understand what Lee meant by his "absorb what is useful" statement, we
need to go back to the martial arts world of the late 1960's. In Lee's
day, martial artists practiced only one discipline: karate fighters
performed karate, judo athletes did judo, etc. Cross training in
different martial arts was unheard of. Yet that was what Lee meant by
this statement. In learning the best that the different martial arts
had to offer, he formulated the first ever "mixed" martial art — his
own system which he called Jeet Kune Do.Fast forward to
the mid-nineties and the advent of the Ultimate Fighting Championships.
This event pitted the best of each martial art against each other.
Initially, the overwhelming dominant art was Brazilian Jiujutsu, so
people assumed grappling was superior. But within a few years the
dominant fighters came from kickboxing. Did that mean striking was
superior? Not necessarily. In the next wave, wrestlers using a "ground
and pound" philosophy dominated. Today, in order to compete in these types of events (in fact, to even survive), you need to cross-train in several systems. There are fighters nowadays who've never learned anything but a mixed system. This approach has been dubbed "Mixed Martial Arts" and has become a mainstream term. Thirty
years since his death, Bruce Lee's message has finally gotten through
to the masses: There's no single correct answer; there's no single best
system. An integrated approach will always be superior.

The Unified Theory Unfortunately,
the search for the best "system" still continues in the fitness
training industry. Years ago, aerobic training was the dominant
training modality. We've cycled through weight training, Nautilus
training, machine training, one-set-to-failure, multiple sets,
functional training, yoga, Pilates, back to free weights, kettlebells,
strongman lifts, and the list goes on.The reality? There's no
correct answer or single best system in fitness training either!
Instead of trying to find the perfect single tool, the fitness
professional or avid gym-goer would be better served by increasing the
size of his toolbox.That said, I'm sure this message will fall
on deaf ears. So until you can accept the premise that you need to
"liberate yourself from the classical mess" (another Bruce Lee line), I
present my Unified Theory of Program Design. We've recently seen a
plethora of advanced program design concepts here on T-Nation, but this
is a "back to basics" program design article.The interesting
thing is that coaches and trainers with different philosophies analyze
each other's programs and focus (or more appropriately, argue) on the
differences. Yet if you look at the top coaches and what they're doing,
you can see certain programming similarities across the board,
regardless of the "type" of training they prescribe. It's been
said that small minds talk about people; mediocre minds talk about
events; and great minds discuss concepts. In my opinion, small-minded
trainers argue about whose program or style of training is the best,
and mediocre trainers debate the differences between programs. Great
trainers, however, cast aside the differences and see the common
underlying similarities. It's the same as punching in fighting
sports. Regardless of the differences in approach, what it all comes
down to is using the knuckles of the fist as a weapon. Once you strip
away the differences we get to the heart of what works. That's the
stuff I'm going to present to you.It's these similarities — the
common underlying successful denominators — that I've chosen to focus
on. So regardless of your personal training philosophy, the principles
I'm about to present remain valid.

The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Program Design
1. Bodyweight Before External ResistanceI've
said this before in a bunch of articles. Other coaches and trainers
have said this before in a bunch of their articles. Yet this remains
the step that most people will ignore. Regardless of your goals, one
thing is for sure: You have no freaking business using a load if you
can't stabilize, control, and move efficiently using only your
bodyweight!Unless your bodyweight is way too much or way too
little resistance, then there's very little room for external loading.
This is not to say that external loading isn't important. Of course it
is, but it has definitely been overemphasized. Unless
you can perform twenty pushups in good from, get your ass off the bench
press. Too easy? The same rule applies to the single leg squat. If you
can't perform 8-10 good reps, then why are you using two legs to squat
with external load?

2. Train with Free Weights (Destabilized)Once
bodyweight has been mastered, the superiority of three dimensional free
weight training is unparalleled. Single joint fixed axis machines —
like the leg extension and the preacher curl machine — are quite
honestly outdated. Other than rotational movements, which can be
trained effectively using a cable column, every other movement can be
performed better with bodyweight or a free weight rather than with a
machine.
Just say no. Dork. The
newest trend from the machine companies is to create thousand dollar
machines that replicate free weights! Save your money. Despite the
advances in technology and in drug use, I think the average trainee's
strength and size is less than in the past.

3. Train Functionally"Functional"
means training for performance, not for the "pump" or standing on a
ball or some other activity. Multiple joint lifts and combination lifts
such as the squat and press are all real world functional activities.
Three words: Don't. Do. It. Life
and sport take place primarily on our feet. It's how we were designed
to work. Our training programs need to reflect that. It seems to me
that I've said this a thousand times, but it doesn't make it any less
true: a muscle group allocation is pointless. Why would the muscles of
the chest need their own "day" for training? If you split up the body
into parts, how do you decide what parts to include? Typically
we see splits of chest, shoulders and triceps, back and biceps, and
legs. Why don't we see splits like rhomboids and hip flexors,
quadriceps and rotator cuff, sternocleidomastoid and pec minor? Because
that wouldn't make bodybuilding "sense." But in my opinion, any split
routine based on a random allocation of muscle groups to certain days
of the week defies all logic.Consider the following
example: Hold a dumbbell in your right hand and raise your arm out to
the side until it's parallel with the floor (a position known as a
lateral raise in the fitness world!) Which muscles are working? The
classic answer is the medial deltoid and the trapezius. True.
But maintain this position and just touch your obliques on the left
side with your free hand. They're contracting maximally in order to
stabilize your torso and spine, thus preventing you from tipping over.
So the oblique has to contract so hard in order to stabilize your
entire upper body (plus your arm and the dumbbell) that it becomes
clear that this exercise forces more work from the oblique muscles, the
tensor fascia lata, and the quadratus lumborum than it can from the
medial deltoid! So is it still a shoulder exercise? Or is it a total core and
shoulder exercise? What body part day is this movement supposed to be
trained on? Hopefully this helps you realize that the body will always
work as a unit. And I don't mean to "bag" on bodybuilding. One can't help but be impressed by top athletes in any sport. But the fact that it is
a sport is also an important thing to remember. Bodybuilding is a
unique sport unto itself. For the general fitness enthusiast (i.e. not
a competitive bodybuilder) to develop and implement a fitness program
using bodybuilding theory and bodybuilding type exercises makes as much
sense as using soccer training or racquetball to design that same
program. And while most people recognize that this is idiotic at best,
we still continue to talk about splitting up "body parts" and following
a bodybuilding-based program.Now, that's not to say we don't use
exercises or ideas from all sports and systems (remember, absorb what
is useful…) To do so would be closed-minded. But to adopt any one
single philosophy is just as closed-minded. If you rank
an athlete's qualities for their sport from 1-10 on a scale and find
that they have a very poor flexibility score but a very good maximal
strength score, then a strength based program may not be the best
choice. Similarly, if my client is a golfer, a powerlifting specific
program isn't warranted.Again, we need to train according to the
demands of life and sport. Athletes such as Serena Williams, Brandi
Chastain, Linford Christie, Pyrros Dimas and Roy Jones have better
physiques than most, but they've never trained for aesthetics; they've
trained for function.
Linford Christie