Addendum - The Devil's Playthings

We've established that knowing where you stand is essential for Deadlifting, but what is to be done with those wandering hands?

Because I'm writing this guide for my class, in preparation for The Segugio's practicum of merciless scrutiny, I will restrict it to a collection of key points, rather than a comprehensive tome on the art of grasping.

• The purpose of an alternate grip is to provide bar stability and prevent rolling.
• The dominant hand should be supinated, to allow the non-dominant side to work at a comparative mechanical advantage.
• The goal of dominant hand supination is equilibrium in the distribution of applied forces, or, as some may phrase it: "making sure one side doesn't rise faster than the other".
• An alternate grip can be used on ANY Deadlift.   
• The only condition for using an alternate grip is that your hand spacing be shoulder-width. 
• In an alternate grip, one shoulder is medially rotated, while the other is laterally rotated. Horizontal abduction/adduction causes a progressive disparity in the distance from each hand to the center-line of the body, and thereby inhibits a streamlined transfer of force.
• ^This may also be phrased as "one arm gets shorter than the other".
• In almost all cases, a narrower grip offers better leverage. Never grip wider than absolutely necessary.
• An alternate grip is often used as default in the Conventional Deadlift, because the narrowest grip which can be achieved [without disrupting the line of pull] is approximately shoulder-width. One should keep in mind, however, that...
• An alternate grip can be used on ANY Deadlift.  
• A Sumo Deadlift with an alternate grip is sometimes referred to as a Mixed-Grip Deadlift, but it's still a Sumo, and the execution, aside from hand spacing, is identical. 
• Hand spacing on a double-pronated Sumo should be as close as possible while still allowing a proper set-up (too close inhibits retraction of scapula).

If you're reading this, it's very likely that you'll be assigned one of the Deadlifts. You're welcome.

End Transmission. 

Handbook For The Recently Deceased

The last article ended somewhat abruptly, due to the nature of my priorities, or perhaps the priorities of my nature. In either case, I regret nothing. Though I sought to make the tables as simple as possible, I'm sure I failed. The only thing more certain than the accuracy of my writing is its incomprehensibility. That being said, any ambiguities which may exist are explained in the notes below. I know it reads like stereo instructions, but give it a try, anyway. 

• "Wide" stance means as wide as can be maintained with hips below knees and neutral foot position. This is not very wide for most people.
• "Jump" stance is slightly inside the hips with quadriceps loaded. The same stance that would be taken with a hang clean. 
• Hip Angle is a measure of the position of the hip in relation to the knee, where 0 degrees is vertical alignment with hip above knee, and 180 degrees is vertical alignment with knee above hip.
• Leverage is an approximation of the lifter's mechanical advantage given their position in relation to the bar. A more advantageous lever requires less applied force to break inertia. 
• As mechanical advantage increases, a successful lift is increasingly determined by [external] force distribution.
• As mechanical advantage decreases, a successful lift is increasingly determined by [intramuscular] force generation. 
• Rep range is my suggestion based on the applicability of each exercise towards certain ends.
• A properly executed Sumo Deadlift requires torque from lateral rotation and abduction, which means stance must be reset after every rep. 
• Intensity is expressed as a percentage of Conventional 1RM. You can't lift 105% of your 1RM, and you shouldn't attempt a 1RM with a Stiff-Legged Deadlift. 

• The Primary Joint Actions are the mechanical processes by which the majority of work is done.
• The Secondary Joint Actions are the mechanical processes by which a comparatively smaller, but uniquely relevant amount of work is done.
• Initiation reflects the muscle group which exerts the greatest amount of force on the bar from the starting position. 
• Sticking Point is, for various reasons, the most likely place where the war against gravity will be lost.
• Limiting Variable is the most common impediment to proper execution. 

The Physics of Necromancy

There's a bar on the ground loaded with 225. It's collared and chalked and there's no one nearby. You want to ignore it. You hope that someone will appear to lift it, but it doesn't happen. You are relieved to see a gym employee walking the floor, as they will surely dismantle equipment not in use. You watch in horror as they calmly walk by it, completely oblivious to the siren's call. You can't resist the urge any longer. You know that the only way to get relief is to pick it up and put it back exactly where you found it. But how? How does one properly manipulate weighted belles against gravity to accomplish this "dead-lift"?

Training to Strengths

There is no universal formula to gauge perfect leverage on a Deadlift. If such a thing could exist, I would have invented it by now. We vary both in absolute and proportional dimensions; that is, even if two people had the same height, weight, mobility, and training experience, their ideal starting positions may be entirely different. One person may have excessively long arms and legs, and narrow shoulders. Another may have a long torso, short arms, and broad shoulders. Finding the position of greatest mechanical advantage is a perpetual game of trial and error.

In a perfect world, that would be the end of my article.

Finding this elusive angle should be done under the guidance of a professional, as we very often confuse what feels right for what is actually right. Deadlifts are uncomfortable, particularly those variants which require a prolonged state of tetanus for the proper distribution of forces. Most people you will meet have anterior tilt to some degree, usually severe. There are muscle imbalances which may be pronounced in athletes training in anterior dominant (boxing) or posterior dominant (sprinting) sports. Finding an ideal position should not be a product of deficiencies. No one has an ideal angle of 20 degrees; they simply lack the ability to hinge. With proper mobility and flexibility, we can employ all (or none, do what you like) styles of Deadlift in our training.  

Addressing Weaknesses

Other than those who learned from Segugio, I've never seen a Sumo Deadlift executed correctly. Poor hip mobility is a fact of life for most people, and seems "normal", but in fact it's a debilitating problem which is denying an already depressed population the sublime pleasures of hinging and thrusting. The Deadlift consists of five sequential preparatory cues followed by one execution cue:

1. Placement of feet as close to bar as possible without interfering with the line of pull against gravity.
2. Placement of hands in a mechanically advantageous position.
3. Retract and depress scapula by locking the lats (creates initial pull)
4. Extend the elbow by locking the triceps (prevents interference in line of pull by smaller muscles)

Your knees should still be fully extended! Start over!

5. Drop the hips while keeping your upper body entirely rigid, creating a lever and ensuring that the downward force of your body exerts upward force on the bar.

If it's not extremely uncomfortable, you're wrong! Start over!

6. Drive through the heels, extending the knees, hips, and trunk simultaneously.

*My skilled hands are busy. I'll get back to this article later. Maybe. Tables below.

Hypertrophy Hyperbole

There has never been a greater schism between what I believe, and what I'd like to believe. We were wrong. All of us, myself included.

How did this happen?

Bodybuilding, our beloved sport, is an American obsession. Had it enough appeal somewhere else, I would have left long ago. This isn't a tirade about what I think is right or wrong about our fair nation, but a context in which to interpret the decades of deception. 

Bodybuilding was able to grow as an industry not due to its appeal as a spectator sport, but its appeal as a means for personal physical improvement. Of course, this was (still is) exploited to its maximum potential. The "secret" to success is whatever ridiculous idea can be sold at the highest profit margin. This is not to say that the industry is evil; it preys on the vanity and stupidity of the masses no more or less than any other. As often happens, however, profit began to define reality, and mainstream science was manipulated to support the whims of supplement manufacturers and magazine publishers.

Each and every month, there is at least one "pro bodybuilder" routine posted in every major bodybuilding publication. That they've been some variation of the same 3-4 sets of 8-12 reps for the last half century seems to go unnoticed. Of course, the bodybuilder uses X Product with X Protocol, which is why he looks the way he does. Only by combining a sugary tub of dust with an obviously ineffective routine can one achieve such excellence.

This is all old news to anyone even casually involved in the sport. We often cite ridiculous claims made by manufacturers, but never stop to think of the overarching structure which allows this nonsense to thrive. All of the accredited personal training organizations have bought into the lies, using selective "science" to back the preposterous claims of the bodybuilding world. Check your NASM book, or even your CSCS book. The key to hypertrophy is doing a few sets of 8-12. Science which counters this is very strongly suppressed, as it would be ruinous to the fitness world.

All of the studies which support the "hypertrophy rep range" idea were done on groups of untrained individuals. What they don't tell you is that while any sort of muscoskeletal stimulus will cause hypertrophy in an untrained person, this is no longer the case after 18-24 months of consistent training. They're safe in pushing the idea, because less than 1% of the people who spend money in bodybuilding will ever meet that threshold.

I've often said that the truth doesn't sell. I had no idea how right I was.  

The Science of Strength

Strength protocols are extremely popular recommendations to novice trainees these days. Replete with junk science, bad advice, and self-aggrandizing horse shit, works of Grade-A toilet paper such as "Starting Strength" have flooded the internet. It's particularly offensive because of its viral replication strategy, outlined below:

1. Novice idiot is convinced to read "starting strength", trains for a few months, experiences gains
2. Novice idiot considers himself an expert, pitches the gospel to unsuspecting and desperate minds

Warning: RAEL SYINTS BEGINS HERE

First, let us understand:

Strength is the amount of force a muscle can exert at a constant speed. If you can move 500lbs across the space of one meter in three seconds (bench press), you are strong.

Power is the amount of total force output measured in work/time. If you can move 200lbs across the space of three meters in one second (snatch), you are powerful.

Adaptations are specific to the stimulus provided. This is agreed upon many times over and is not a point of contention. Adaptations, however, are also versatile, which makes similar adaptations redundant. Though we would all be fine with redundancy of superpowers, our bodies (playa haters) find such things to be a pointless waste of resources. Your body will only adapt if it absolutely has to. If one adaptation is sufficient to cover multiple stresses, you do not "need" another. Hence, we have biofeedback mechanisms which prevent anything from altering homeostasis. When homeostasis is altered, it is ALWAYS by the most cost-efficient means.

Power is mostly a measure of neural efficiency. If you train "explosively", your body adapts by increasing the surface area of the axon terminal at the neuromuscular junction, thereby increasing acetylcholine output, which leads to a more rapid and complete depolarization of the muscle cell. The calcium pump fires according to the strength of this action potential, which determines how hard the muscle contracts. Existing motor neurons adapt to efficiently innervate more and more existing myocytes. Tendon strength increases (so that your trigger-happy calcium pump doesn't tear the muscle off the bone), Golgi Tendon Organ desensitizes, phosphocreatine stores may increase, and dormant (but already existing!) Type IIB muscle fibers may become active.

Strength is basically a measure of neural efficiency, but the increased time under tension causes significant muscle damage and inflammation, which necessitates further adaptations. Existing muscle cells repair the damage, and sometimes (especially during the first 18 months of training) we're fortunate enough to have them use building materials of ever-increasing quality. A strength training stimulus will also elicit a limited degree of hypertrophy in an untrained person, as a base amount of musculature is necessary for any athletic performance. Once said degree of muscularity is achieved (still very very far removed from bodybuilder status), existing muscles continue to strengthen themselves, assuming consistent stimulus. There will be a volume-dependent (though still very limited) increase in glycogen storage, glycolytic enzymes, and intracellular fluid.

Hypertrophy was (until I wrote this article) believed to occur via magic when training with repetitions above the strength threshold (~8), but below the "endurance" threshold (~16). The idea of  "endurance" is founded on the laughable belief that high rep ranges primarily stimulate Type 1 (oxidative) muscle fibers. Get it? Because oxygen is being used before the lactate threshold is surpassed! How/Why this differs from every other physical activity ever is never explained.

Back to hypertrophy. In order to push the pseudo-scientific idea that something special occurs between reps 8 and 16 (or 6 and 20, if you prefer), the bodybuilding media has cherry-picked and improperly applied certain biological theories. Because these theories are laden with actual facts, and applicable in other contexts, it's very hard to see why what they're selling is bullshit. I'll do my best to explain:

What they say: Muscle fiber size runs from small to large Type I -> Type IIA -> Type IIB -> Type IIX
The larger (anaerobic) cells also have the most potential for growth, therefore the most size is to be gained from training heavy.

Why it's bullshit: Muscle fiber type distribution varies among muscle groups. The greatest size increases will come from hypertrophy of the existing fibers, not hypertrophy of the fibers you wish were there.

What they say: Heavy training causes the conversion of smaller fibers to larger fibers Type I -> Type II, etc. Therefore, we should convert as many fibers as possible to the most anaerobic type.

Why it's bullshit: Sedentary people have the greatest proportion of Type IIX fibers. Anaerobic cells cost less to maintain, and are seldom activated. Fiber type conversion only happens in extremely specialized athletes (ultramarathoners and olympic lifters), as someone probably mentioned in the greatest cardio article ever written.

What they say: Muscles are activated according to the size principle (smallest muscle fibers required to exert the necessary force). Since our concern is stimulating anaerobic fibers, we should use the heaviest possible weight (with good form).

Why it's bullshit: The size principle applies just as well in a fatigued state. You can work anaerobically with a heavy weight, but a light weight becomes equally anaerobic after a few reps. 

Now that we've covered what doesn't cause hypertrophy, we can get to the depressing truth about what does.

End Game

Hypertrophy is not a measure of strength, nor of power, nor of ability. Hypertrophy is only incidentally related to any other form of training. It's a very costly response to a stress that cannot be handled via less expensive means.

The primary factors influencing hypertrophy are: Hypoxia and Acidity

Hypertrophy is a measure of metabolic waste. Fast glycolysis creates H+ ions, which accumulate due to occlusion, and decrease the pH of the muscle. The H+ must be neutralized with Pyruvate (formed internally, from glycogen) to create Lactate, which is then shuttled to the liver to create glucose, which returns to the muscle to repeat the process. Vascularization occurs because the [toxic] blood is trapped in the working muscle, and needs to be cleared before the pH of your blood drops and you die of acidosis.

During a "pump", interstitial fluid increases, and myocyte size decreases (beacuse osmosis). During this bout of hypoxia, intramuscular IGF-1 stimulates cell proliferation. Regulatory Volume Increase (no, seriously, that's what it's called) occurs on site via charged ions moving through the proton gradient in spite of osmotic pressure. When normal oxygen levels are restored, the myocytes are expanded, and the proliferated cells become differentiated. These small cells are repeatedly exposed to high osmotic pressure, and their proton gradients adapt to become aggressively resistant, increasing cell volume with each bout.

What does it all mean?

An effective hypertrophy protocol requires little complexity and much less weight than we'd all like to believe. Training with moderate volume and light weight, and taking all sets to failure with 15-30 second intervals is pretty much all that's needed.

I attempted to train for hypertrophy in accordance with the aforementioned theory this morning. I concluded that I'm happy just the way I am. 

 

Fact Check: Metabolic Damage

I strongly prefer to present the affirmative truth, rather than challenge the claims of other fitness personae, but this rebuttal was specifically requested, and I'm not one to deny pleasures.

I've always had mixed opinions towards the ideas of Layne Norton, but it's safe to say he's not my least favorite person in the world. I recently watched his Metabolic Damage series (biolayne 9, 15, 16, 20). My assessment is provided below.

Opening disposition: 0 (neutral)
Bonus: +10 for hating Lyle McDonald
Penalty: -10 for exceptionally boring videos

biolayne 9

4:33  "...they essentially get no caloric value from that type of cardio"
In reference to people on very low calorie diets. It's one thing to argue about a reduced metabolic rate, it's quite another to claim that hungry people are able to create ATP without substrates.

8:28 "...it's also there to maximize your metabolic capacity"
In reference to ideal utilization of an offseason period. We are in absolute agreement.

10:33 "...really focus on slowly and deliberately adding calories over time"
In reference to intake progression during the offseason. Agree. There should be regular minute transition phases between the peak of a precontest diet and the peak of an offseason diet.  

11:03 "...you should eat the maximum amount of calories that you possibly can while still losing bodyfat at the appropriate rate"
In reference to not drastically cutting calories during contest prep. This guy seems legit, I'm starting to wonder why someone would consider us so different.

12:19 "...low intensity cardio has been shown to reduce metabolic rate over time"
Ah. Curiosity sated. It's technically not an inaccurate statement, it's just an irrelevant one. Aerobic fitness reduces your resting metabolic rate (2-5%). I sure hope so. If you get winded during the walk from your parking spot to your destination, you'll burn more calories on the trip than a fit person. I think I'll accept the trade-off and just park a little farther from the door.

12:46 "... you actually get to the point where you need that amount of cardio just to maintain your weight"
No. You don't get 100% energy efficiency from becoming aerobically fit. Over time, you'll require less energy expenditure to do the same task, but the decline in expenditure does not cover the increase in ability.

Running at 6mph for 1 hour may initially burn 1,200 calories
When you've become fit, it may only burn 900 calories
At that level of fitness, you can maintain an 8mph pace at the same PER (perceived exertion rate) for the hour, and burn 1,400 calories

Even if you choose not to progress, and even at maximal efficiency, that hour of running will still incur the energy costs of work. You still moved an object from point A to point B using ATP as fuel, even if you used 1/4 of the fuel an obese person would require. Energy efficiency is not energy independence!

13:16 "...I would even say one hour of low intensity cardio a day is complete overkill"
Sure sounds like it. If it's a 20 minute walk to the train station, and the elevator is broken at work, you need to be sure to bring a wheelchair, lest you destroy your mitochondria from such reckless expenditure. We are aerobic creatures! It takes about 90 minutes to even achieve maximum substrate efficiency (where your body is maximally reliant on beta-oxidation for energy production). Looks like someone needs to read The Seugio Unified Theory of Cardio.

13:33 "...but think about a marathon runner, or a swimmer, or somebody who does a ton of low intensity cardio. If you look at somebody training for a marathon, there is no way they should be able to eat enough calories to maintain their bodyweight, but they do (maintain their weight)"
You mean like Michael Phelps? Or triaheletes who eat 6-7,000 calories on a training day? The above quote is absolutely baseless. Layne might believe that endurance athletes simply exist at the same weight regardless of diet, but they're often just as dedicated to their nutrition as people in the strength world.

14:27 "...Anybody who's been through a long contest prep doing a lot of low intensity cardio probably knows exactly what I'm talking about."
I sure don't, but maybe I'm stupid. Maybe if you explained it to Jay Cutler or Kai Greene. Low intensity steady-state cardio seems to work for every Mr. Olympia ever, and Ronnie Coleman won eight straight. According to Layne, low intensity cardio stops working after an initial metabolic adjustment, but somehow, Coleman was able to get lean every year using the same stairmaster. Someone should go tell those guys that they're wasting their time.

14:39 "...Low intensity steady state cardio is a mindless easy form of cardio"
I think someone is confusing an old lady falling asleep on a treadmill for a trained athlete maintaining a steady pace for 90 minutes.

15:06 "...An hour of steady state cardio at 3mph on a treadmill, either that, or doing six 30-second sprints"
In reference to a study demonstrating that the aforementioned sprint intervals proved more successful at targeting bodyfat. Somehow I feel it fair to infer that the people involved in this experiment were not exactly stellar athletes. Untrained people responding to severe adaptive stress vs. using artificially low intensity to ensure no aerobic adaptations occur. Perhaps this dumb shit can convince people with no background in science, but it's utter garbage to the trained eye.

15:50 "...I don't wanna hear about 'you burn a greater percentage of fat while burning low intensity cardio' "
I wonder why. Is it because it's true? Yeah, better to not hear it then; people hate the truth.

21:48 "...That dieting and binging cycle is about the worst thing you can go through"
Advocating slow diet transitions. Now he's making sense again.

23:32 "...They end up spinning their wheels over time"
In reference to people who plan unreasonably restrictive diets and compensate with a weekly cheat meal. I've warned time and time again about not underestimating the power of insulin. His rationale may be different, but we agree on planning diets with no cheat meals.

25:19 "...Or maybe even some low intensity cardio"
In reference to people finding ways to continue progressing without drastic cuts in calories. I agree with his statement. I don't think he agrees with his statement.

biolayne 15

7:10 "...I'm talking about anybody who wants long term fat loss"
In reference to the importance of metabolic capacity for the achievement of goals. Absolutely. There will be a Segugio article on this very topic in the near future.

9:20 "...Eating as many calories as you possibly can, doing as little cardio as you possibly can, while still losing weight"
In reference to weight loss at the beginning of a cut. It's valid to an extent, but the benefits of cardio generally far exceed the benefits of inefficient metabolism.

10:22 "...You add calories extremely slowly"
In reference to using very slow caloric progression rather than transition phases when starting a bulk. Again, I agree that his argument is valid, but he seems to have convinced himself that expenditure doesn't exist. He's advocating that calories be raised in very small (~30) weekly increments. It's not wrong, it's just almost impossible to do. Let's hope his athletes are mindful of the extra oat flake that fell out of the scoop. Don't eat it... he's watching.

biolayne 16

10:47 "...The bodyfat set point theory"
I don't care to discuss this at length at the moment, suffice to say we agree.

17:06 "...Exercise induced thermogenesis goes down"
In reference to steady state cardio (of course). Not incorrect, just entirely misleading.

19:04 "...The adaptations your body makes while you're doing that is trying to get you back to homeostasis"
In reference to the body's propensity to set conditions for fat storage during very low calorie diets. This is proven. I addressed it as a consideration when planning fasted cardio. Yes, my article really was that good.

29:07 "...If we go very low calorie with excessive exercise"
This accounts for two entirely separate conditions. Just because they're often done in tandem doesn't mean their effects are interchangeable.

31:36 "...And now you're doing that two hours of cardio a day"
False premise. This is again presenting cardio as an intrinsic by-product of a starvation diet.

33:00 "...Fat loss resumes"
In reference to slowly cutting intake to maintain rate of fat loss after creating an "energy cushion" (amirite) via increase of metabolic capacity. I agree. I'm just curious as to why someone who has championed maintaining the highest possible level of caloric intake doesn't first increase expenditure. The Segugio would. Ooooooh.

35:22 "...If you don't plan for this stuff, you're going to fail"
In reference to understanding your body's defense mechanisms deployed during periods of caloric restriction. Correct. This is why crash diets don't work. The reference used here was rather excellent.

biolayne 20

5:59 "...What I'm not okay with is suffering for the sake of suffering"
It doesn't have to be related to fitness. I addressed this concern in a piece I wrote while in service.

Closing disposition: -1 (slightly unfavorable)
(11 positive, 12 negative, 3 neutral) I started with a mixed opinion of his work, and I'm ending with about the same opinion. Alright then, cardio time.

The Other Segugio Squat Protocol

The Other Segugio Squat Protocol: Erection Training for Sport

Success, the recipe:

Step 1: Read the original Segugio Squat Protocol
Step 2: Determine eligibility
Step 3: Execute. Read The Other Segugio Squat Protocol if ineligible.
Step 4: Execute.

The purpose is once again to increase strength, power, and work capacity. The difference here is versatility; this program can be used during most phases of training for most athletes. While the original better caters to strength athletes and offseason bodybuilders, this program can be effectively used by a much larger demographic. This program may be preferable to the original if any of the following apply:

1. You have 2-4 years of training experience.
2. Your intake is within 5% of BMR. (You are cutting, but not through drastic restriction)
3. You make excuses and wind up training only 4x/week
4. You wanna be a bodybuilder, but don't wanna lift no heavy ass weight

Though I like to write my programming in 7+1 double mesocycles, this program is better applied as a 16 week linear block. Ideally, this program would be run as a 6-Day Split, but since catering to the lazy and inept is fashionable these days, it will run effectively enough given the following provisos:

1. The heavy and light day are set 48 hours apart
2. Isolation/weak point training/low intensity cardio is the only training permitted within the aforementioned 48 hour squat hiatus.
3. Lower body isolation work and low intensity cardio is strongly encouraged on the day after the light session.
4. Deadlifting is only permitted within 48 hours of completing the light session.

Disclaimer: No one can ever claim to have invented anything in the fitness world. That being said, I independently developed this methodology about 10 years ago through trial and error, and have never seen anyone else advocate it.

The training is organized along the lines of something I've named the over/under principle, which, according to google, apparently has something to do with knitting or pond draining. The principle is to train a muscle group in a different manner for a number (>2) of consecutive days, then to abstain from training it for approximately the same time period. I've found it to be a very effective way to prepare for powerlifting contests, but it's just as good for hypertrophy.

Ideal split:

Monday: Press
Tuesday: Pull
Wednesday: Heavy Squat/Legs
Thursday: Isolation/Weak Point/Cardio
Friday: Light Squat/Legs
Saturday: Deadlift/Lower Body Isolation
Sunday: Off/Cardio

Our lower body "overtraining" period is from Wednesday to Saturday, followed by three consecutive days of rest. If you are one of those people who enjoys pretending to be busy, upper body training can be divided amongst the OT days, and the three days of rest can be used for kite flying, hoop rolling, shoe shining, or whatever other hijinks you ragamuffins get into these days.

Unlike the original program, the intensities outlined are derivatives of your actual tested 1RM. Not your assumed 1RM. Not your projected 1RM. Not your "I have at least another 20 pounds in me" 1RM. Not your 1RM from high school. Test fresh, with >120s intervals, and regular increments of progression. Be sure to have a trained spotter. Not a liver spot, not your dog spot, but MY spot.

Modus Operandi:

Initial Week:

Heavy Day: 6x6@55%, 2-1-X-2 (or other momentum-free tempo of choice), 60 second interval
Light Day: 5x10@45%, 2-1-X-2 (or other momentum-free tempo of choice), 45 second interval
Assume a tested 1RM of 400 for the examples.

Heavy Day progresses with full increments (10 lbs. for most) at half volume (3 of 6 sets) every week. All increases in weight are front-loaded.

Correct: 6x6@220, [3x6@230, 3x6@220], 6x6@230, [3x6@240, 3x6@230], 6x6@240

Stupid Idiot: 6x6@220, 6x6@230, 6x6@240

Light Day progresses with full increments every fourth week. Power (work/time) output increases every week with the cyclical scheme of (5x10, 4x12, 3x16, 2x20). Variance in total workload is generally insignificant, but work efficiency is nearly doubled. Intervals are 45s for the first two weeks, 60s for the third week, and 90s for the fourth week. The intervals are scaled to allow for more rest, increasing the likelihood of set completion, while still ensuring increased work efficiency.

Week 1: 10 reps | (45) | 10 reps | (45) | 10 reps | (45) | 10 reps | (45) | 10 reps
Week 2: 12 reps | (45) | 12 reps | (45) | 12 reps | (45) | 12 reps

Week 3: 16 reps | (60) | 16 reps | (60) | 16 reps
Week 4: 20 reps | (90) | 20 reps

Relative work efficiency:

Week 1: 50 reps x 180 pounds = 9,000 pounds total work / 180 seconds rest = 50
Week 2: 48 reps x 180 pounds = 8,640 pounds total work / 135 seconds rest =  64
Week 3: 48 reps x 180 pounds = 8,640 pounds total work / 120 seconds rest =  72
Week 4: 40 reps x  180 pounds = 7,200 pounds total work / 90 seconds rest = 80
Week 16: 40 reps x 210 pounds = 8,400 pounds total work / 90 seconds rest = 93

The technical measure of total power output would require the inclusion of time under tension. Though total power output would more precisely gauge mechanical efficiency, our primary concern is athletic performance, for which my modified scale is a better indicator. Time under tension should not be punitive (as it would be on a raw power scale), as there is still work being performed in the eccentric and isometric portions of the lift, as well as the rack, step-out, and re-rack process.

Time under tension is "athlete time" as far as I'm concerned. The concentric work should begin from a paused loaded position, and end in a stable isometric. Excessive use of momentum would give a larger, though highly misleading calculation of "efficiency", but more meaningful work is being done by using strict form.

Contingency Plans:

There shouldn't have to be any. If you absolutely must put the weight down, take a 5 minute break, reset yourself, and reattempt.

Other Thoughts:

Do not neglect training abduction and hip extension during isolation day(s), especially if you squat with an olympic stance. Cardio, as always, means low to moderate intensity.

The Perils of Specificity II: Satyracromion

We can define "training" as our deliberate attempts to promote adaptation. This is in contrast to "exercise", which often serves a vaguely defined purpose, the achievement of which is generally dependent on one's endorphin response. There is no objective affirmation or denial of whether an individual has "broken a good sweat" or "got their heart pumping". Still, any activity undertaken will have physical consequence, even in the absence of physiological adaptation. In training, we use specific intensities (%1RM), tempos, and intervals in an attempt to efficiently achieve our desired results. Though a hypertrophic response may be elicited through our deliberate work (say, 4 sets of barbell curls), we still activate the same muscles throughout the day (perhaps to raise a beverage) in the execution of our non-exercise physical activity. This "collateral activation", as I alluded to in the last segment, does not create a stimulus for physiological adaptation (you don't become appreciably stronger, no matter how many sips you take from your glass), but it very well may have a physical consequence. Of course, I'm not one to neglect these delicate topics which others often fail to even discover.

A muscle contraction involves the physical shortening of agonist fibers, and the corresponding lengthening of antagonist fibers via reciprocal inhibition. The problem with everyday activity is that there are very few opportunities to use the full range of motion of any given muscle group. As a result, most of our [mechanical] work is done in narrow ranges and with a strong isometric component. A waiter may have an extremely well developed anterior deltoid in the first 30 degrees of shoulder flexion, but lacks balanced development of the posterior deltoid in shoulder extension. The imbalance increases the likelihood of acute injury, but there is the more pressing (get it?) issue of the static forces which keep the muscle activated long after the restaurant closes. The chronic shortening of one muscle causes the chronic lengthening (and weakening) of its antagonist. This scenario isn't exactly ideal in regards to the structural integrity of the joints and soft tissues.

It is not, however, a problem reserved only for those with isometric-intensive professions. I would not be writing this article were it not relevant to the fitness community. Not only do we consider ourselves immune to imbalances, we often refuse to acknowledge our injuries. I am particularly guilty of expressing my denial as: "I always do everything right, my elbow/shoulder/back/knee hurts for no fucking reason!" To be fair, I was entirely unaware of why I was mistaken before a very recent epiphany... why did I raise my head during my deadlift again?

No, that's far too simple. Why did my neural programming resort to activating my splenius capitis, thereby putting me in the dangerous position of neck extension? It very clearly should have activated my longus capitis, and thus maintained the proper position of neck flexion. I must admit that I do not use isolation exercises to target my neck flexors and extensors, despite the availability of the equipment to do so. That explains why I'm currently unbalanced, but it doesn't explain how I became unbalanced. Plenty of people without my knowledge and experience manage to avoid neck extension while pulling. Since I don't activate it properly in isolation, why would I have activated it improperly in isolation? I had not, of course... and here begins our fun.

I spent about a week with severely limited mobility; I could not comfortably sit, and while standing was possible for short periods of time, I much preferred to lean on things, or to lay in a contorted position in an effort to reduce the compression force(s) on my lumbar spine. I had been achy and tired the week before, so I tried to make the most of it, and thought of it as forced recovery time. Several days into my new concurrent training regimen of pretzels (superset with frosty flakes) and netflix (superset with soundcloud), I noticed that I had very painful bilateral shoulder impingement, very likely the worst I had ever experienced. Considering that I would be furious to have any sort of injury while lifting up to and including infinity hundred pounds, you can imagine that I did not qualify the lateral raising of my cereal bowl as a legitimate cause for pain. Though my severe demands for answers would have frightened any rational acromion out of my supraspinatus, mine required an attitude adjustment... rather, an altitude adjustment. While looking in the mirror for any indication of abnormal function, I wondered how, days removed from any deliberate exertion, I could have provided a disproportionate stimulus to the muscles which cause impingement. Scapular elevation, shoulder flexion, elbow flexion, medial rotation... and then it clicked. The man in the mirror was suddenly familiar to me.

I often play a curious game, it involves using the oral cavity in the creation of a pressure gradient while simultaneously engaging the glossal muscles in rhythmic circumduction. The game is self-correcting, in that it scales in difficulty as you advance in ability. Assuming standard starting position, the irregular (indeed spasmodic) forces which would deviate a sport enthusiast from his/her preferred dynamic and tempo can only be counterbalanced with forces generated at the glenohumeral joint, most of which involve medial rotation. A few hours of uninterrupted playtime can (and will) severely shorten the agonist muscles and leave one in a postural mess not unlike that encountered with upper cross syndrome. An innocuous leisure activity causing severe pain and structural imbalance in a highly trained, flexible, and mobile athlete. Humorous as the premise may seem, it's very real, and very relevant to our profession. I've since developed the habit of performing sit-ups (with isometric neck flexion) and planks (for scapular depression) on a daily basis. It took about 10 days to get rid of the imbalance (which I hereby name Gladiator Syndrome), and I'm now pain free.

TLDR: I am advocating the use of exercises to specifically target the antagonist muscles of those employed during non-exercise physical activity. It's imperative to not confuse physiological adaptations with physical reactions. My muscles did not become any bigger or stronger by maintaining a certain posture, but they certainly became shorter. Having chronically tight hamstrings or traps is not a matter to be dismissed. There's a reason for it, and if you're following a sound training protocol, it's something you're doing outside of the gym. Drop your ego, drop your political correctness, and evaluate yourself. It's preferable to exercise a bit of vigilance in observing your movement patterns than to let your habits surface during your training.

"Well, there goes the meet. Idiot can't keep his head down. Hope it was worth it."

In your mind, of course: Was Amazing

Though with a bit of mindfulness, earthly pleasures and peak performance can co-exist. If you play piano, do planks. If you wait tables, do rows. If partying demands that you constantly raise the roof, be sure that a similar attitude towards excess be employed on the lat pulldown. You may wave your hands in a manner which implies indifference, but you really should care. It's just a matter of being responsible.

Until next time.

     

The Perils of Specificity I: A Delegation to The Mayor of Chincinnati

I recently suffered a minor back injury while performing a conventional deadlift. I believed it to be little more than a re-aggravation of an older injury (compression of L5/S1) due to the sciatica and immobility which accompanied it. Upon further reflection, I've become skeptical of my original hypothesis. There were no indicators of chronic injury, as I had experienced no pain while moving similar loads during high bar squats several days prior, and the injury in question was sustained suddenly and unexpectedly during the third set in a series. The weight and intensity were submaximal (singles at ~80%), and the interval was adequate (90-120s). Ruling out pre-existing injuries and fatigue, the only plausible cause is a breakdown in form.

Shocking, yes? The strength specialist form nazi lost his bearing on a submaximal deadlift. I wasn't paying attention, simple as that. My mind was drifting off into space, and I didn't bother to take the weight seriously. Plenty of lifters (many better than I) hurt themselves by not paying attention; this phenomenon is not exactly news. The item of particular interest in regards to injuries sustained during high intensity closed chain movements is personal variability. In comparison, chronic elbow pain during extension is usually tendonitis, and shin splints are generally a product of anterior tilt. I would never advocate diagnosing an injury based on the frequency of its occurrence, but very often (on the internet, for example) one is not able to personally supervise a series of diagnostic tests and palpate adjacent muscles, so the probable response based on the information given must suffice.

So why did The Segugio's form break? Ever cognizant of my passionate and controversial (but biomechanically advantageous and therefore correct) advocacy of a low (knee and hip flexion beyond 90 degrees) starting position, I immediately assumed that I must have prematurely raised my hips. Again, this idea did not hold to scrutiny. Thought my hip position may have been less than ideal, I would have been perfectly able to slowly grind out a rep using my hamstrings were that the only deficiency. What happened instead was a break just below the knee, and a dropped weight. I had raised my head, throwing my once neutral spine out of alignment, and prompting the generation of shear forces against the line of pull of my erectors (amirite).

Good. Stop being stupid and keep your head straight. But there's a lot more to it than that. A break in form is usually caused by a reversion to intuitive (as opposed to trained) motor patterns. In our day to day activities, we benefit far more from fine motor control than high threshold recruitment, so we tend to sacrifice mechanical efficiency for practical convenience. It's "easier" to bend at the waist and pull to pick something up than to sink to your heels and drive upwards, despite the fact that you can only generate a fraction of the force. Untrained people seem to walk with their quads, lift with their backs, and use their shoulders to push and pull. Ask someone to do a push-up, and they'll spread their hands a mile apart, then hunch over it while sinking at the hips. Ask someone to pull and they'll medially rotate with flexed elbow (think arm wrestling).

As fitness professionals, we remain mindful to avoid falling into these improper movement patterns. We barely notice activating our lats to pull a door shut, or pushing a grocery cart with retracted scapulae. We're always highly aware of our bodies in the execution of the mundane; never failing to sit using hip flexion or to maintain a soft knee and tight core while standing. This mindfulness, useful as it is, can lead us to believe ourselves immune to muscle imbalances, and cause us to neglect active injury prevention (or pre-hab, if you will).

An untrained person is far more likely to have an inhibition/compensation complex, such as upper cross syndrome (see title), but chronic unintentional activation can still cause imbalances. There won't necessarily be a visible discrepancy in muscle size or strength, but there will be a greater intuitive reliance on contracting a muscle that has adjusted to prolonged periods of shortening. In other words, someone with slumped shoulders and/or rounded back may feel quite comfortable in their contorted position(s). If an imbalanced position becomes ingrained in the mind as de-facto anatomical, then one will unconsciously seek to return to said position in the absence of mindful stimulus. We can all force ourselves into a proper starting position (assuming adequate flexibility and mobility), but how we "unfold" in our moments of mindlessness is dependent on the incidental programming we code with every last bit of energy made kinetic. The existence of "collateral activation" is the topic of our sequel.

Brace yourselves. Will be amazing.                      

American Hypochondria

Written at the request of Alex "Mephysteaux" Reiff in response to the AMA's recent awarding of "disease" status to obesity.

Before I get into why obesity is not a disease, it should be known that the AMA itself admits that their reclassification is a pragmatic action aimed at altering the popular perception of the condition, as well as the methodology of its treatment by the medical community. This is a purely social/political/economic matter, which will undoubtedly be exploited from every angle by those institutions whose profit can be superficially linked to "health". There is no biological merit to naming it a disease, so if you take that position, please understand that you are wrong.

Obesity is the condition of exceeding the government dictated weight which corresponds to one's height, gender, and age. Proponents of both sides of the [disease/not] argument agree that the BMI is an archaic and inaccurate tool with little to no contemporary application. There is a great deal of support for rewriting the standards for obesity, often with the proviso that any such classification should be based on adiposity, rather than gravitational force. The idea that any such classification is arbitrary, however, seems to have escaped most people.  

Obesity is a co-morbid condition of many afflictions, and a risk factor of variable, but imprecise significance for others. The endocrine system works through cyclical biofeedback loops, not linear causality chains. The most often cited link to disease is that obesity [sometimes] increases the risk of insulin resistance, which can lead to Type II Diabetes. There is a rarely mentioned, but equally relevant counterpoint that insulin resistance can lead to Type II Diabetes, which predisposes one towards obesity. No one is ever concerned with the second scenario, probably because Diabetes is a disease, and obesity is a product of collective imagination.

The premise for labeling this state of being as a disease is based upon:

1. The false attribution of causality in circumstances of coincidence
2. The baseless emphasis given to one observation over all others
3. The equation of visibility with significance
4. The deliberate negligence of American medical schools

1. There is much media attention given to diseases which the obese seem to suffer at a much higher rate than the rest of the population. Adipose tissue is always the culprit. Heart attack? Your fat needed too much blood. Cancer? Your fat secretes pro-inflammatory cytokines! It never occurs to anyone that there is an underlying problem; the blame always rests with the fat, regardless of where its production came about in the biofeedback cycle. Very high stress environment, skyrocketing cortisol levels, insomnia, etc. may have contributed to both a person's adiposity and their infarction. Fuck investigation, though; he was fat, and that was the cause of everything that ever went wrong in his life. Case closed.

2. Single condition correlation statistics are less than useless; they're counterproductive, and their abuse is borderline criminal. The problem with scientifically relevant data and responsible research is that they rarely yield sensational values. If you're 60 times more likely to have a heart attack with a BMI over 38, it makes for good television. If you add in all those other pesky variables, like age, activity level, diet, stress, sleep patterns, geography, medical history, pre-existing conditions, genetic disposition, et cetera, you may discover that he's no more or less likely to have a heart attack than someone with a BMI of 25. Fuck that, change the channel. Be aware that breathing air and drinking water are habits often observed in people diagnosed with cancer. Better cut that shit out.

3. The importance of spectacle. The fundamental piece of social knowledge familiar to every Italian. Fat man on an operating table can only be there because he's fat. Just look at him! Magic Johnson has AIDS. Nah, he looks fine. We entrust our medical professionals to discover and treat our ailments. We trust that countless years of school and residency have imparted in them the ability to see what may not be readily discernible to the rest of us. It's awfully presumptive of me to make the claim that fat people don't go to the doctor to be told to lose weight, but I stand by it. "Losing weight" implies that weight loss will treat/cure/attenuate whatever ails the patient. This is wrong. Just like "obesity" is not a disease, "lean" is not an indicator of health.

4. Taken alone, weight loss/gain has very little to do with health. It's the means by which we achieve the ends that matters. Every sort of benefit and reduction of risk factors is attributed to "weight loss", while the diet and exercise employed in pursuit of weight loss is the actual mechanism by which hormones become regulated, and quality of life is improved. There is no incentive to teach basic nutrition and exercise science in medical schools, because these institutions function as little more than shill factories for the pharmaceutical industry. The physicians are not to blame; we should not hold someone accountable for knowing what was deliberately withheld from them. If medical schools taught nutrition, our current system of government-subsidized industrial agriculture might be called into question. Cut into the profits of Monsanto AND Pfizer AND McDonald's? Sounds like treason to me. Whose side are you on?

Despite my reputation for being an uncompromising tyrant with impossible expectations, I must declare that the obesity epidemic and subsequent controversy is not meditated by personal responsibility. I encourage everyone to learn and grow and live to their fullest potential, but I do not expect that all, or even most people will follow my advice. To be clear, I am a trainer, not a politician; my policies apply specifically to dedicated volunteers, not to the population at large. I can expect my trainees to learn the fundamentals of nutrition and fitness, because this knowledge is vital to the achievement of their goals. The American education system, however, doesn't place much emphasis on health. The media, even worse, obscures and manipulates the reality of health, and uses the allure of "fitness" to pair empty minds with empty wallets. We have no idea of what comprises the garbage we call "food", and no impetus to search for actual food, which is comparatively expensive, bland, and time consuming. No one blames a lab mouse for pressing the food lever and becoming obese. We've deluded ourselves into believing that social pressure can somehow replace our animal mechanisms of survival; that biology can be subordinated at will to our whimsical fabrications. Hubris indeed.    

The title of "disease" removes the trainer and dietitian from the picture, removes the incentive to improve oneself through natural means, and encourages a mentality of victimization and helplessness. Not to fear, however, as your government sanctioned drug dealer will come to your rescue with a magic pill. It won't be magic, however... there will be side effects, recalls, and profiteering. At least you can rest easy that the official autopsy will blame obesity for your demise.




       

The Segugio Squat Protocol

The Segugio Squat Protocol: Erection Training For Sport 

This program is designed to quickly restore strength, power, and work capacity to a detrained, offseason, or specialized athlete. Heavy compound lifts tend to take a secondary role during bodybuilding contest prep, in-season sports training, and periods of rehabilitation (or laziness).

This 14 week protocol is ideal for returning to peak performance before progressing to sport-specific refinement. I am currently using it with a comparable time allotted for pre-contest cutting. If you plan to compete (in anything) in the fall, this program may suit you. If you have less than five years of serious training history, it may not.

It's a 7-Day Split, which can be done on a 4x2-A-Day if absolutely necessary. It's loosely based on the Smolov Squat Cycle, which, until this article is published, remains the premier guide to the world of weighted sit and stands. I keep the frequency identical (MWFS), but with a much greater focus on power and workload, as opposed to raw strength. Smolov is specifically designed for powerlifters, and more specifically for competitors using gear (equipment, not anabolics). I believe this program to be at least equivalent for raw lifters, and possibly superior. If your goal is to produce maximal force, your training should be focused on acceleration (CNS), volume (hypertrophy), and frequency (form development). Size (accessible fiber count, not surface area) and efficiency (how many fibers you can meaningfully activate at once)  are paramount. Of course, if weight gain is a concern, there are other ways to develop strength.

Most programs begin with a 1RM test and incorporate weights based on percentages of that number. Those programs are universally applicable with variable results. This program is narrowly applicable with predictable results. Before I move on to the template, I need to unambiguously establish the prerequisites of this class:

1. You have five or more years of serious training experience

2. You are a cyclical athlete (your training varies during the course of a macrocycle)
3. You are in an early phase (>14 weeks remaining) of your offseason

Because you undoubtedly meet all of the above conditions, your starting weight will be 50% of your projected 1RM. How to project? Use a number +/- 10% of record 1RM based on resource (time constraints, changes in physical/professional status) assessment. If you had a 500 pound squat at 24, and you're now 57 with a replaced hip, you probably shouldn't use that number. If you're 22 with a 500 pound squat, and plan to move back into your mom's house after college, you might use 520. Not much useful data can be derived from the 1RM of a postseason football player, a post-contest bodybuilder, or a lapsed strength athlete. Instead of using 6-8 weeks of "recovery" time to gradually reincorporate heavy training, then arbitrarily testing 1RM (which is what most sports programs do), you can get right back to quality training. By your 8th week, you'll be focused on new progress and aspiring towards ever greater heights, while your peers are still recapturing lost ground, and telling anecdotes about "muscle memory" in the locker room.

Now that your imagination is properly aroused, I'm only too happy to deliver the pain.

Modus Operandi:

Initial Week:

Monday: 15x3@50%

Wednesday: 12x4@50%
Friday: 10x5@50%

Saturday: 6x6@50%

Each workout progresses incrementally with the latter 3 schemes (12x4, 10x5, 6x6). Increments will vary (you can't just add 10 pounds a week forever), but consistent growth at any rate will still achieve impressive results. Intensity increases only after the successful completion of all three schemes.

Correct: 12x4@250, 10x5@250, 6x6@250, 12x4@260, 10x5@260, 6x6@260

Stupid Idiot: 12x4@250, 10x5@260, 6x6@270

Strength athletes should test 1RM on the 7th and 14th week. The max can be performed on any squat training day, in lieu of that day's planned session. Progression is not in any way altered.

Correct: 12x4@320, 10x5@320, 1x1@435, 6x6@320, 12x4@330

Stupid Idiot: 12x4@320, 10x5@320, 1x1@435, 12x4@330

Tempo should indicate a controlled descent, brief pause, explosive ascent, and stability at full contraction. My personal preference is 2-1-X-2, but since this program operates on big boy rules, feel free to use any timing that matches the description. Interval is 45 seconds. As the weights get substantially heavier, 60 seconds may be acceptable to ensure the preservation of mechanics. This is a program for athletes. If you can't execute with brief rest intervals, stop reading, and work on your conditioning. It's not about fat/thin/slow/fast, it's about being able to sustain a high level of output.  

Assuming a projected max of 500, the first squat session would consist of 15 sets of 3 reps at a weight of 250. The timing of each set is N-N-X-N, with a non-zero value at every [N], and the [X] portion of the lift completed X-plosively. The consecutive number of seconds the bar is permitted to sit on the rack once you start your series is 45. The interval time (45 seconds, don't get lost now) is based on tension, not on when you step out of the rack, not on when you lock out, not on any other nonsensical measure. Any time spent supporting 100% of the weight counts as time under tension, and does not count against your allotted 45 seconds of reprieve. If you don't understand the contents of this paragraph, please refer to the works of Charles Poliquin.

Contingency Plans:

Failure of a rep, defined as the inability to independently complete the movement (the bar is on your shoulders and you can't stand up without assistance), results in immediate termination of the session. The failed series is reattempted on the next training (MWFS) day, and progress continues as normal.

Correct: 12x4@270, 10x5@270[F], 10x5@270, 6x6@270, 12x4@280

A consecutive failure results in immediate termination of the session. The program reverts back to the last properly executed weight in the failed rep/set scheme.

Correct: 12x4@270, 10x5@270[F], 10x5@270[F], 10x5@260, 6x6@260, 12x4@270, 10x5@270

Very important: If the failed weight is a known "plateau" (it's usually mental inhibition, but better to get your athlete over the obstacle than to give a psychology lesson), or readily identifiable factors (lack of sleep, missed meals, dehydration) can be attributed to have affected performance, series may be restarted at 1/2 unit decrement.

Correct: 6x6@260, 12x4@270, 10x5@270[F], 10x5@270[F], 10x5@265, 6x6@265

Degradation of form, defined as the inability to independently complete the movement to the outlined standards (your "explosive" contraction takes 8 seconds and has you constantly shifting and grinding), results in immediate reduction in intensity. Progression continues either as normal or at 1/2 increment. Below is an example of responding to form breakdown during the third set of the third series.

Correct: 12x4@270, 10x5@270, 3x6@270 + 3x6@260, 12x4@280 OR 12x4@275

Ancillary work is needs-based, but all athletes should target the major muscle groups and relevant motion patterns. Below is the plan as I use it:

Monday: Chest, Shoulders, Triceps
Tuesday: Back, Biceps

Wednesday: Legs (non-squat exercises), weak point training

Thursday: Upper Back, Traps, Biceps

Friday: Chest, Shoulders, Triceps

Saturday: Back, Arms

Sunday: Legs

If you prefer powerlifting:

Monday: Vertical Press

Tuesday: Vertical Pull

Wednesday: Leg assistance work

Thursday: Horizontal Pull

Friday: Horizontal Press

Saturday: Upper Body assistance work

Sunday: Leg assistance work

4x2-A-Day Split:

Monday: AM Press, PM Squat
Wednesday: AM Leg + Upper Body assistance work, PM Squat
Friday: AM Press, PM Squat
Saturday: AM Pull, PM Squat

Regardless of the template used, the squat session should be done after the day's other training (doesn't have to be dead last). The reasons for this are twofold:

1. Knowledge of an impending fast-paced squat session is likely to prevent overexertion in other exercises.
2. Engaging other body parts while fresh will facilitate high quality training for less frequently targeted groups. If the only time you worked a body part was after a punishing squat series, it would undoubtedly suffer.

Ideally, the framework will help you create brief and efficient training sessions that complement the SSP.  

Variance:

There are cases which would be better served by a modified approach. If a bench press specialist makes good progress by pressing 3x/week or 3x/month, then there is no reason to change that aspect of his/her training. In cases such as these, trainers should carefully track rate of gain, changes in form, or visible signs of fatigue/injury. They may be able to "complete" the assigned workload, but their physical improvement is much more pertinent than their ability to check the box. Due to the demands of the squat work, it is advisable for most athletes to moderate all other exercises. I recommend one foundational compound exercise (Military Press, Barbell Row) per day, performed at <85% intensity (unless you're a strength athlete), with assistance/isolation work comprising a sizeable portion of each session.

Nutrition:

The primary concerns in planning a diet are sport-specific and individual-specific considerations. A 100 pound increase in squat max doesn't matter to a wide receiver if the corresponding increase in body weight impairs speed. My recommendations (below) are based on what I find adequate to support this level of training.

1. Protein approximately 2g/lb bodyweight

2. Complex carbohydrate no less than 1.5g/lb bodyweight

3. Total calories ~BMR + 20% (3400 + 680 = 4080 for me)

4. Cardiovascular work compensated at 90% (consume 90 additional calories for every 100 expended through deliberate aerobic work)

Supplementation:

My suggestions are creatine monohydrate, beta-alanine, citrulline malate, and taurine. Peri-workout blends such as Purple Intrain (discontinued) and Surge Workout Fuel are good options. BCAA mixtures like Xtend and Chain'd Out may be better options for the weight conscious. Stimulants should be used sparingly due to increased chance of vertigo and irregularities in blood pressure.

Other Thoughts:

I prefer a slightly narrower than shoulder-width stance on most of my sets, as it allows me greater depth and better acceleration. I've noticed no impairment in the posterior-chain dominant (wide, straight) stance I use for max attempts.