General vs. Specific Programming & Training for Looks vs. Function

Thought I’d share a recent email exchange with one of my readers:

Hi Steve,

I’m not sure if you’ve covered this in a post before – feel free to point me to the post if you have – but I was wondering what your thoughts are on a regime that gives overall fitness and strength? Bit of a background from my point of view – I play netball and touch rugby, have recently (in the last 8 months) taken up running and can now run for 5k non stop. I used to love doing weights in the gym ahead of cardio but I can no longer afford a gym membership so am using 30DS as my ‘weights’. What I ideally would like to do is a combo of cardio and weights that will give me endurance as well as sprint speed, plus a good body shape – I am not a fan of the marathon runner look! I would also like to compete in a sprint distance triathlon this year so would like ‘all-round’ fitness. I have a full time job and also in summer I go out hill walking every other weekend so quads strength and endurance is paramount in those months. I am trying to do too much? Is it humanly possible to achieve all these things at once or should I just focus on what is to hand (eg netball and rugby seasons are separate and the triathlon would be before mot of the hill walking would be done for the season.). I’m 5’6″, 29yo and weighing in as of this morning at 76kg. I’m not too bothered about how much weight I lose but I know to perform better I need to drop some weight and so have my goal weight at the high end of healthy BMI (for what it’s worth). My food and exercise diary is open if you wish to see what I currently do, although I have been on a bit of a break for Christmas
and New Year.

Anyway, what I thought would be a quick question has become quick long winded so I’ll leave it for now.

Thanks for your time,
XXX

Yes, only the very lucky can excel at everything at once… get strong, have optimal endurance, have an ideal body composition, etc. All these goals require different modes of training if they’re to be optimized. So if you optimize one, you’re, by default, taking away from the other.

That’s not to say you can’t improve everything at once, depending on where you’re currently at in terms of your training career.  In theory, the further you are from your genetic potential, and thus the more room for improvement you have, the easier it is to bring the various qualities up. It’s just that you can’t dial everything in perfectly simultaneously.

I train a lot of women and most have goals of primarily looking better (chasing that athletic, toned look) while improving general fitness. And for these things to be accomplished, training needs to be spread across progressive heavy strength training and various forms of conditioning work.

The conditioning work is sort of the wild card, as the type and dose is going to depend on the goal. If they just want to improve generally, they can pretty much do anything that keeps them moving for any sort of duration. But if they’re training for a specific endurance event or whatever, it’s going to require more
deliberate training in order to dial it in.

Put simply, there isn’t one best program out there. It’s going to depend on the person, where he or she currently is, where they’d like to go, etc.

Thanks for your reply – I did think I was asking a lot when I looked at how much I want to be fit for.

Is twice per week of each training block enough to see moderate improvements? Eg if I did endurance cardio 2 days, sprint cardio 2 days and weights 2 days is that enough in your opinion for anyone of what would probably actually be low fitness if I were to take my VO2max.

I think I am always going to be aiming for good overall fitness rather be a specialist in one area as I don’t want to feel like exercise is a chore or that I’m working on one area and then going on to focus on another area and losing all the gains made in the first place.

It’s hard to say. We know that you need to stress your body above a certain threshold in any given capacity (strength, endurance, etc) if it’s going to improve. And that threshold changes with training/experience. Which is to say that for the novice, they can get better across the board pretty much doing whatever. For this reason, I think it’s important for novices to sort of do what they want and figure things out as they go. There’s no need for being crazy specialized or regimented unless that’s something they want.  Just take a balanced approach doing some strength oriented stuff and some conditioning oriented stuff… focus on quality effort and consistency.

As that training theshold adapts/increases though, it takes more deliberate work to squeeze out the adaptations/improvements we’re looking for. In these cases, I’m much more inclined to specialize. But it’s not an on/off switch as you’re suggesting. It takes less work to maintain an attribute than it does to build an attribute. So I’d simply cycle through blocks where I’m building up one or two capacities while maintaining the rest, and then change this emphasis with each successive block based on needs, goals, etc. And when those changes occur, things that were being focused on will now be moved to maintenance, and thus, less attention will be dedicated to them.

This is all theoretical, but it is how I manage my clients’ programs who have goals that transcend looks. There’s always some strength training and always some conditioning work. But the mix, dose, and specific type varies based on current needs.

This may have opened up more questions, which is totally fine. Just let me know.

Well I definitely think despite having played sports and exercised for most of my life I could class myself as a novice to proper training of any sort, especially when it comes to pushing myself cardiovascularly. I think therefore I can hope for improvements in all areas for a while yet.

So once I think I’m ready to focus on specific areas I cycle through the focus areas and do one or two at a time? Then switch them to maintenance and focus on what had been on the backburner of maintenance? I guess then once I am trying to get more serious my macros will matter more in my nutrition? And that would open a whole other can of worms…

I think it’s such a shame that so many people have looks as their goal with P/T – either the men that want to bulk up or the women that want to be slim and toned. I guess that would make up the majority of your clients? Not that I’d complain if I had a body like Jessica Biel or similar!!

Out of curiosity, do you provide P/T via Skype/emails?

Yup, you’ve got the idea. Start out as a generalist and then as you progress, you’ll learn that eventually more planning and specialization are in order. And maybe not.  Some people stay generalists forever.  They’re able to do all the things they like to do and they’re happy with how they look.  How will you know if you need to graduate from being a generalist? Well as everything progresses and you focus on everything at once, eventually you’ll become spread too thin. At that point, you’ll sort of feel like a big pile of poo and your performance across the board will start to lag.

In the novice stages, you can’t muster up enough intensity to justify such planning. Granted, that doesn’t mean you can’t work your ass off. Or that you can’t over do it. It’s just that the hit on the body increases as your abilities increase.

Nutrition doesn’t change that much throughout the process. I mean obviously it needs to change based on whether you’re trying to gain or lose weight. And it should change in response to your exercise load… which a lot of people overlook. Doing stuff, like exercise, requires fuel/nutrition. Do more exercise, need more fuel. Without it, people tend to run themselves into a hole…. especially the neurotic dieters and exercises we see in our culture today.

Regarding your comment about it being a shame that most people’s primary goal revolves around looks…. that’s a HUGE can of works. I can’t blame people for training for looks. Let’s face it, we don’t exactly live in a society that’s very deep. We’re very shallow and view pretty much everything on the surface. With such an intense focus on weight and appearance, a lot of people are brainwashed into living and dying by the numbers.

But here’s what a lot of people have trouble grasping. If they focused on performance and consistency more than numbers, they’d arrive at the same destination eventually. They’re too hung up on the immediate feedback the scale provides, regardless of how irrational it is at times. Taking an extended viewpoint just doesn’t jive with how their mindsets have been molded by our fitness culture.

I say it time and time again, but form follows function. If you get somebody strong and they pair that with sensible nutrition, more often than not their physique is going to be optimized within their genetic limits. The body that most men are shooting for is nothing more than a strong body with low levels of body fat. The body that most women are shooting for is nothing more than a strong body with low levels of body fat. The difference is men have the hormonal dispositions to support a larger base of muscle mass.

As far as my client base goes, it’s pretty mixed, thankfully. Of course I have those people who hire me who are solely interested in the scale and their appearance. But I also have a large base of clients who are merely interested in maintaining functionality and health. If they wind up looking better, they’re happy, but it’s not the prerogative. I also work with a lot of athletes. I’m a strength coach too, so I deal with individual athletes as well as a few teams.

And in terms of web-based services, you can read about them here:

http://body-improvements.com/services/online-training/