indian-outlaw
Well-known member
BFS is bunk according to Dr Ken Leistner. For those of you who haven't heard of him, id suggest a Google search. He is widely regarded as the nations premiere strength coach. Here is an article he wrote about the peddlers of BFS, so read up trainees.
Strength Wars
Everyone involved in strength training has the attitude that they know how to train “properly.” Most who have been lifting weights for more than a year see themselves as pseudo experts in the field, bowing only to the information provided by someone with a larger arm, heavier bench press, or three or four degrees listed after their name. Most trainees don’t stop to consider that there is a lot of money to be made by those who advocate the use of a particular training method or type of equipment, and this will bias one’s objectivity toward training modes.
There are those who believe a particular training method is “the way” because they have made great progress on that program. They, too, sometimes forget that genetic factors may have allowed outstanding gains in muscular size and strength in the face of a ridiculous or terrible training routine. Finally, there are those who espouse the efficacy of a training method based more on belief than a true understanding of the facts. This may arise because they have benefitted from the program, or it just seems to “make sense” to them, whether or not the physiological facts stand up to scrutiny.
All of this has served to divide the strength training world into various factions: the machine people, the quick lift people, and the confused and somewhat discouraged people who get overwhelmed by the realms of conflicting information.
After a minor injury to my rotator cuff, I asked one of the most famous powerlifters of all time if doing one or two sets on a Nautilus pullover machine would benefit the involved area. You would have thought that I had attacked the virtue of his mother, so vehement was his response. “You _____, that’s the stupidest question I ever heard. You shouldn’t even be lifting.” I later realized that he had perceived my question as an attack upon “his program” of cleans, squats, deadlifts, and bench presses--something which had been construed as an attack on his personal beliefs.
Once one aligns oneself with a particular manner of training, it is often impossible to back down or compromise--even in the face or recent research findings or common sense realization--due to economic or peer group pressure.
Bigger, Faster, Stronger (BFS) is an organization that gives seminars on athletic motivation and strength training to schools and organizations. They publish a journal which promotes their methods of training and offers many products for sale, ranging from motivational audio and video tapes, to the type of training equipment needed if one were to follow the BFS method of training. While it is not my purpose to single out BFS, it is my opinion that some of their training procedures are potentially dangerous, so much so that some aspects of the program should not be used, especially by the younger football player or powerlifter.
From my perspective, there are two aspects to the BFS program: training and motivation. I have seen the BFS video tapes, and received a first-hand report of their recently completed Long Island seminar. I have no objections to getting young people excited about weight training, nor do I object to instilling confidence in a young athlete. However, the BFS method of having young people--some with limited weight training experience--try to deadlift 300, 350, 400 lbs or more in front of a screaming audience of their peers is ridiculous.
By pushing on the low back and simultaneously pulling on the trap/shoulder area, the Bigger, Faster, Stronger motivational speaker can “assist” one of these young football players or girls to deadlift more weight than they normally could, but at what risk? Vol. 1, Nos. 1 and 4 of THE STEEL TIP noted the special precautions that should be taken when training adolescents due to their immature structural anatomy, and this piece of showmanship violates many of those precautions. Despite their protestations that injuries rarely occur as a result of their program or this type of demonstration, I see it as dangerous and potentially injurious.
I have world level powerlifters training at my center, using the best of form, with many years of training experience, and low back injury due to deadlifting is still a common occurrence. I would have to think that taking youngsters out of the audience, putting them in front of peers, and motivating them to deadlift “more than before,” one that perhaps will “go into the BFS record book,” is unjustified. Even if every student in the school was motivated to become a weight training advocate, the potential risk of injury cannot justify this particular motivational technique.
BFS also publish a journal highlighting the type of training they espouse, and which is usually filled with anti-machine rhetoric. The November 1984 issue is typical, noting that Bill Fralic of Pittsburgh University and his strength coach, Buddy Morris, are advocates of free weights because “free weights, not machines, are the answer for primary athletic training.” Morris states that “The Nautilus people don’t like me but then I’m not losing any sleep over it.” Harvey Newton, a coach for the US Olympic weightlifting team states that machines like Nautilus have no place in the training program of his men.
Okay, the BFS people don’t feel that training with machines gets you bigger or stronger, at least not as well as free weights can, and that’s their prerogative. If we take a moment to consider that stance, it becomes evident that their claims are hollow. In order to stimulate muscle growth, it has yet to be proven by scientific inquiry or experience that there is “one best method.” It is necessary to create tension in the muscles and expose them to overload. These requirements can be met by barbells, machines, manual resistance, and sandbags. To say or imply that machine training can’t get one bigger or stronger is untrue. If the requirements for proper rest and adequate nutrition are met, and enough overload is placed upon the muscular system to stimulate a response to grow while not overtraining it, increases in muscular size and strength, governed by genetic limitations, will occur.
BFS is also of the belief that limited amounts of very intense work are unable to stimulate maximum muscle growth. They state that “One set of 8-12 reps: About 3% of our universities still use this system. It is obviously a quick way to get through a workout. However, a plateau will set in quickly if this is done week after week. This system is very unmotivating.” They propose 3, 4 or 5 sets per movement, and on their major exercises call for the use of very heavy weights and very low reps in the 1-5 range.
These beliefs are contrary to almost everything I believe in and what common sense dictates. Previous issues of THE STEEL TIP have talked about the dangers one is exposed to when training with very heavy weights and low reps. Injury to muscle and connective tissue is always a real possibility due to the dangerous forces placed upon the structural and muscular systems. You magnify the risk of danger and injury when you involve adolescents.
Volume has never been shown to be a necessary requisite for gaining muscle strength, although almost everyone agrees that high intensity is a necessity. One or two all out sets, using as much weight as possible, is all anyone needs to get bigger or stronger in any exercise. Doing more erodes the ability to recover, but does little else that is productive. I watched the incredibly strong Reggie Williams of the Cincinnati Bengals work out recently, and he trained so hard using one set per exercise that he couldn’t have withstood multiple sets of any of the exercises he did. Doing pyramids and low reps may allow one to demonstrate strength during the workout, if we define strength as the ability to do one or two heavy reps in a specific exercise, but it is one of the most dangerous and inefficient ways to actually build strength (see THE STEEL TIP, Vol.1, No. 2 for further clarification.)
The BFS choice of exercises is perhaps the part of the program that I am most unhappy with. The full squat is a great exercise and few progressive resistance movements can match it for stimulating overall muscular growth. However, it is unnecessary to have any athlete other than competitive lifters use maximal weights for low reps. This practice is dangerous, not only because of the stress placed on the vertebral components and connective tissue, but also because using high forces in the movement can cause alterations in proper form, subjecting the lumbar spine to possible injury. Using weights that will allow no less than twelve or fifteen reps is a much more efficient way to squat and build strength, especially for football. Powerlifters must practice the skill of squatting with maximum weights for singles or doubles, but other athletes should avoid this practice at all costs. It may be good for the ego, but is actually counter productive.
The power clean was discussed fully in Vol. 1, No. 5 of THE STEEL TIP, and my objections are obvious. The speed of movement of the bar makes this a dangerous exercise no matter how much weight is used and no matter how much attention is paid to the utilization of proper technique. Except for Olympic-style lifters, most athletes do not power clean in good form!
The bench press can certainly be productive, although too much emphasis is usually placed upon it by powerlifters and football players, leaving unbalanced shoulder girdle development and a risk of injury if one either continues to bench press heavily or plays football. A balance of agonist/antagonist groups is vital to protect against upper extremity impairment.
The deadlift too can be used effectively, but I object to this description of BFS technique: “keep your reps to five or less,” “always bounce the weight while doing reps. If a lifter pauses and starts cold between each rep, then your chances of straining the low back multiply greatly.” Again, using low reps is dangerous. Very few top lifters would dream of bouncing their deadlifts. That is far more dangerous than setting yourself in proper position at the start of each rep. In fact, very few lifters have such disregard for their own safety that they would fail to reestablish proper deadlift position before doing another rep. Most top lifters also realize that bouncing the bar off the platform imparts momentum to the bar, doing little for actual muscle growth stimulation. This is akin to throwing a weight overhead as in the jerk. It may take some amount of athletic skill, but does little for strength increases.
The box squat (see THE STEEL TIP, Vol. 1, No. 6), BFS Readiness System, and other of their procedures also have obvious deficits that need not be explored here. The importance of my comments is to indicate the possible serious consequences that come when a group of influential people confuse the demonstration of strength with the building of strength, something the BFS programs are guilty of. Even if their methods were the most efficient for building bigger, stronger, and faster athletes or powerlifters, which they emphatically are not, the risk of injury, most obviously compromising the vulnerable low back, makes the use of this program unjustified. I believe that their exercise selection and methodology puts every athlete that uses their program at possible risk.
It’s important to realize that barbells and machines can both be used to make a competitive lifter or athlete stronger. The powerlifter will have to use a barbell to learn the skills of the sport, and can certainly use a variety of free-weight movements to enhance that specialized training. However, the lifter can also use a number of machine movements to further increase strength, and a football player or other athlete who does not need the skills of the competitive lifter can use many machine exercises, perhaps to the exclusion of any free weight movements, to become bigger, faster and stronger.
Strength Wars
Everyone involved in strength training has the attitude that they know how to train “properly.” Most who have been lifting weights for more than a year see themselves as pseudo experts in the field, bowing only to the information provided by someone with a larger arm, heavier bench press, or three or four degrees listed after their name. Most trainees don’t stop to consider that there is a lot of money to be made by those who advocate the use of a particular training method or type of equipment, and this will bias one’s objectivity toward training modes.
There are those who believe a particular training method is “the way” because they have made great progress on that program. They, too, sometimes forget that genetic factors may have allowed outstanding gains in muscular size and strength in the face of a ridiculous or terrible training routine. Finally, there are those who espouse the efficacy of a training method based more on belief than a true understanding of the facts. This may arise because they have benefitted from the program, or it just seems to “make sense” to them, whether or not the physiological facts stand up to scrutiny.
All of this has served to divide the strength training world into various factions: the machine people, the quick lift people, and the confused and somewhat discouraged people who get overwhelmed by the realms of conflicting information.
After a minor injury to my rotator cuff, I asked one of the most famous powerlifters of all time if doing one or two sets on a Nautilus pullover machine would benefit the involved area. You would have thought that I had attacked the virtue of his mother, so vehement was his response. “You _____, that’s the stupidest question I ever heard. You shouldn’t even be lifting.” I later realized that he had perceived my question as an attack upon “his program” of cleans, squats, deadlifts, and bench presses--something which had been construed as an attack on his personal beliefs.
Once one aligns oneself with a particular manner of training, it is often impossible to back down or compromise--even in the face or recent research findings or common sense realization--due to economic or peer group pressure.
Bigger, Faster, Stronger (BFS) is an organization that gives seminars on athletic motivation and strength training to schools and organizations. They publish a journal which promotes their methods of training and offers many products for sale, ranging from motivational audio and video tapes, to the type of training equipment needed if one were to follow the BFS method of training. While it is not my purpose to single out BFS, it is my opinion that some of their training procedures are potentially dangerous, so much so that some aspects of the program should not be used, especially by the younger football player or powerlifter.
From my perspective, there are two aspects to the BFS program: training and motivation. I have seen the BFS video tapes, and received a first-hand report of their recently completed Long Island seminar. I have no objections to getting young people excited about weight training, nor do I object to instilling confidence in a young athlete. However, the BFS method of having young people--some with limited weight training experience--try to deadlift 300, 350, 400 lbs or more in front of a screaming audience of their peers is ridiculous.
By pushing on the low back and simultaneously pulling on the trap/shoulder area, the Bigger, Faster, Stronger motivational speaker can “assist” one of these young football players or girls to deadlift more weight than they normally could, but at what risk? Vol. 1, Nos. 1 and 4 of THE STEEL TIP noted the special precautions that should be taken when training adolescents due to their immature structural anatomy, and this piece of showmanship violates many of those precautions. Despite their protestations that injuries rarely occur as a result of their program or this type of demonstration, I see it as dangerous and potentially injurious.
I have world level powerlifters training at my center, using the best of form, with many years of training experience, and low back injury due to deadlifting is still a common occurrence. I would have to think that taking youngsters out of the audience, putting them in front of peers, and motivating them to deadlift “more than before,” one that perhaps will “go into the BFS record book,” is unjustified. Even if every student in the school was motivated to become a weight training advocate, the potential risk of injury cannot justify this particular motivational technique.
BFS also publish a journal highlighting the type of training they espouse, and which is usually filled with anti-machine rhetoric. The November 1984 issue is typical, noting that Bill Fralic of Pittsburgh University and his strength coach, Buddy Morris, are advocates of free weights because “free weights, not machines, are the answer for primary athletic training.” Morris states that “The Nautilus people don’t like me but then I’m not losing any sleep over it.” Harvey Newton, a coach for the US Olympic weightlifting team states that machines like Nautilus have no place in the training program of his men.
Okay, the BFS people don’t feel that training with machines gets you bigger or stronger, at least not as well as free weights can, and that’s their prerogative. If we take a moment to consider that stance, it becomes evident that their claims are hollow. In order to stimulate muscle growth, it has yet to be proven by scientific inquiry or experience that there is “one best method.” It is necessary to create tension in the muscles and expose them to overload. These requirements can be met by barbells, machines, manual resistance, and sandbags. To say or imply that machine training can’t get one bigger or stronger is untrue. If the requirements for proper rest and adequate nutrition are met, and enough overload is placed upon the muscular system to stimulate a response to grow while not overtraining it, increases in muscular size and strength, governed by genetic limitations, will occur.
BFS is also of the belief that limited amounts of very intense work are unable to stimulate maximum muscle growth. They state that “One set of 8-12 reps: About 3% of our universities still use this system. It is obviously a quick way to get through a workout. However, a plateau will set in quickly if this is done week after week. This system is very unmotivating.” They propose 3, 4 or 5 sets per movement, and on their major exercises call for the use of very heavy weights and very low reps in the 1-5 range.
These beliefs are contrary to almost everything I believe in and what common sense dictates. Previous issues of THE STEEL TIP have talked about the dangers one is exposed to when training with very heavy weights and low reps. Injury to muscle and connective tissue is always a real possibility due to the dangerous forces placed upon the structural and muscular systems. You magnify the risk of danger and injury when you involve adolescents.
Volume has never been shown to be a necessary requisite for gaining muscle strength, although almost everyone agrees that high intensity is a necessity. One or two all out sets, using as much weight as possible, is all anyone needs to get bigger or stronger in any exercise. Doing more erodes the ability to recover, but does little else that is productive. I watched the incredibly strong Reggie Williams of the Cincinnati Bengals work out recently, and he trained so hard using one set per exercise that he couldn’t have withstood multiple sets of any of the exercises he did. Doing pyramids and low reps may allow one to demonstrate strength during the workout, if we define strength as the ability to do one or two heavy reps in a specific exercise, but it is one of the most dangerous and inefficient ways to actually build strength (see THE STEEL TIP, Vol.1, No. 2 for further clarification.)
The BFS choice of exercises is perhaps the part of the program that I am most unhappy with. The full squat is a great exercise and few progressive resistance movements can match it for stimulating overall muscular growth. However, it is unnecessary to have any athlete other than competitive lifters use maximal weights for low reps. This practice is dangerous, not only because of the stress placed on the vertebral components and connective tissue, but also because using high forces in the movement can cause alterations in proper form, subjecting the lumbar spine to possible injury. Using weights that will allow no less than twelve or fifteen reps is a much more efficient way to squat and build strength, especially for football. Powerlifters must practice the skill of squatting with maximum weights for singles or doubles, but other athletes should avoid this practice at all costs. It may be good for the ego, but is actually counter productive.
The power clean was discussed fully in Vol. 1, No. 5 of THE STEEL TIP, and my objections are obvious. The speed of movement of the bar makes this a dangerous exercise no matter how much weight is used and no matter how much attention is paid to the utilization of proper technique. Except for Olympic-style lifters, most athletes do not power clean in good form!
The bench press can certainly be productive, although too much emphasis is usually placed upon it by powerlifters and football players, leaving unbalanced shoulder girdle development and a risk of injury if one either continues to bench press heavily or plays football. A balance of agonist/antagonist groups is vital to protect against upper extremity impairment.
The deadlift too can be used effectively, but I object to this description of BFS technique: “keep your reps to five or less,” “always bounce the weight while doing reps. If a lifter pauses and starts cold between each rep, then your chances of straining the low back multiply greatly.” Again, using low reps is dangerous. Very few top lifters would dream of bouncing their deadlifts. That is far more dangerous than setting yourself in proper position at the start of each rep. In fact, very few lifters have such disregard for their own safety that they would fail to reestablish proper deadlift position before doing another rep. Most top lifters also realize that bouncing the bar off the platform imparts momentum to the bar, doing little for actual muscle growth stimulation. This is akin to throwing a weight overhead as in the jerk. It may take some amount of athletic skill, but does little for strength increases.
The box squat (see THE STEEL TIP, Vol. 1, No. 6), BFS Readiness System, and other of their procedures also have obvious deficits that need not be explored here. The importance of my comments is to indicate the possible serious consequences that come when a group of influential people confuse the demonstration of strength with the building of strength, something the BFS programs are guilty of. Even if their methods were the most efficient for building bigger, stronger, and faster athletes or powerlifters, which they emphatically are not, the risk of injury, most obviously compromising the vulnerable low back, makes the use of this program unjustified. I believe that their exercise selection and methodology puts every athlete that uses their program at possible risk.
It’s important to realize that barbells and machines can both be used to make a competitive lifter or athlete stronger. The powerlifter will have to use a barbell to learn the skills of the sport, and can certainly use a variety of free-weight movements to enhance that specialized training. However, the lifter can also use a number of machine movements to further increase strength, and a football player or other athlete who does not need the skills of the competitive lifter can use many machine exercises, perhaps to the exclusion of any free weight movements, to become bigger, faster and stronger.
