Few doctrines are cast in stone — look at theology, religion or political theory. This is true of exercise science too. Core issues are always worth discussing, and if it is worth discussing, it is worth going into more details than you can fit within the limited scope of social network platforms. Dissent, disagreement, and debate should be the guiding covenant of any ideological thought. “Few things in exercise science are truly black and white,” writes Travis Pollen, who holds a PhD in health and rehabilitation sciences from Drexel University and a Master’s degree in biomechanics and movement science.
I wish I had a penny for every time I have heard statements like these: “Stop training the abdomen muscles in isolation. Core training is good enough to strengthen your mid-section”, “Clients do not need corrective exercise. Strength training itself is corrective enough”, and “Traditional cardio is a waste of time. Just lift weights”.
All these are legitimate viewpoints and all have some value to it. The great saint of Bengal Renaissance, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, once remarked: “There are as many paths as there are opinions” and I feel all these opinions have a place and play a role in adding to the depth and richness of our profession.
This differing viewpoint is legitimate. However, many practitioners wrongly abuse the fabric of diversity to promote divisive viewpoints. “Want to get attention and engagement in social media? Start an argument about a controversial topic in exercise science,” says Travis Pollen.
Let’s look at some of the most polarising and hotly debated topics that I have encountered in my career (and let’s try and put them in the right perspective).
Corrective exercise versus ‘shut up and lift’
A potent nuclear weapon in the hands of a tyrant dictator could be a nightmare. Corrective exercise is a bit like that. Some trainers are so rigid, they get too focused on the roadmap rather than on manoeuvering the car and they end up crashing the vehicle. They use “cookie-cutter assessments” to identify movement dysfunctions and prescribe “corrective exercises” to address them. I have always opined that good technique is the best corrective exercise. A properly performed squat, deadlift and lunge is the best correction in the world.
However, what is ”correct” and “proper” will vary from person to person and a thorough assessment and only a thorough assessment will help you to understand the true potential of the human body and reveal the red flags. “Not only are there no universally agreed-on standards for movement, but we also know that the way people move doesn’t actually predict injury.” This comes from the great master Gray Cook himself. (Cook helped design an internationally accepted Functional Movement Screen.)
The antagonistic view: Some trainers don’t do any sort of assessments and believe in throwing you into the deep end straight away. Most people are not born to lift — they spend an inordinate amount of time in a seated position, lead grossly inactive lives, or/and are devoid of any basic movement culture. Putting them under a bar straight away without checking for potentially dangerous patterns is asking for trouble. The trainer needs to help the client to find his or her own optimal exercise setup and pattern (not necessarily the most generalised pattern) before loading the neuro-muscular system. True “ corrective exercise” entails finding the most beneficial and curated solution for each individual. Period.
Jury’s take: Random exercise prescription and haphazard lifting can put your client at risk. Curate your client’s best starting point for exercises and design the progress from there onwards. Do not dwell on empty claims that you are identifying and correcting movement dysfunctions. “Knowledge is knowing that tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad!”
Traditional cardio versus metabolic resistance training
The popularity of CrossFit in the early part of this millennium was like a door slammed on the face of traditional cardio as we knew it. CrossFit, which is really another form of metabolic resistance training, is so much fun plus serves the twin purpose of building muscle while enhancing cardiovascular fitness.
I am not a big fan of traditional cardio, particularly low-intensity or moderate-intensity but I must confess it is still probably the safest way to build base-level aerobic fitness among not-so-fit clients or novice first-timers. And I do respect that some clients enjoy walking, running, swimming or cycling and I see no reason to persuade them to stop these activities (provided they don’t turn into cardio junkies or neglect strength training).
You have to be a little careful about metabolic conditioning with weights too: It encourages a repetitive pattern under load, requires good technique and sometimes, constant cueing for beginner or even intermediate-level clients. You have to ascertain who is ready for it. This is particularly true of Crossfit-type workouts, where you do heavy, technical
lifts for time in a fatigued state. It could be too advanced for a larger percentage of gym goers, yet, trainers tend to push it because it is exhilarating, popular and rewarding. But for clients who are not well-baked for it, the risk definitely outweighs the reward.Jury’s take: Metabolic resistance conditioning with accurately prescribed exercises could be both fun and challenging for clients who are ready for it. On the flip side, traditional cardio also offers health and wellness benefits and can be tweaked a bit to include appropriate progressions. You can always slip in some traditional cardio sessions as recovery from more intense metabolic workouts.
Steady state cardio versus HIIT
This debate is almost a flow from the previous point and possibly predates it by a decade or two. The goal is to increase endurance and fat burn in this argument, just take the resistance training factor out.
My own take is that High Intensity Interval Training is the superior form of metabolic conditioning as it elicits a positive hormonal response, produces tremendous carryover burn and improves speed endurance performance. If you compare this to snail’s pace trudging along (goes by the name of jogging!) or easy lick cycling, then it’s a no-brainer as to which is a superior form of training. But, there is a solution: Jack up the heart rate to anything between 120 to 140 beats for 20 to 30 seconds and hey presto! You have a game on.
Jury’s take: Ideally, clients do some of both — push the short, high-intensity lovers to increase their duration progressively. For clients who prefer longer cardio sessions, do tweak the intensity a bit and encourage them to crank the heartbeat up, slowly but surely
Compound lifts versus isolation exercises
Look, multi-joint, complex exercises, like squats, deadlifts, rows and lunges give you the best bang for your buck and should form the platform for your training programme. That’s Gospel! I don’t think anyone would argue against that or disturb the foundation.
However, there are certain muscles in the body that may require singular or detailed attention. Sometimes they need to be taught how to integrate with the rest of the body with adequate synergy. The hip flexors and hamstrings, for instance, are sensitive muscles and get injured very often, especially in athletic population. We do use isolated movements like standing resisted hip raises and Nordic hamstring curls to strengthen them in isolation to prevent injuries.
Jury’s take: Why not have a happy blend of what the client “wants” along with what he/she “needs”? Just make sure that what the client needs is top priority. And what the client needs is big bang hormone-inducing movements supported by isolated injury prevention work and do throw in some “just desserts” in the form of bicep curls and abdomen curls.
Moderate reps versus higher and lower reps
Old-style training advice has always prescribed repetition objectives as under:
l 2-5 reps for strength
l 6-12 reps for hypertrophy
l 13 and above build muscle endurance
These have been the guiding principles taught by coaches forever. Modern research however tends to indicate that any rep range can produce hypertrophy provided the volume is high and the set ends in momentary failure.
One of the big disadvantages of lower-rep training is that it requires more recovery between sets, which tends to lengthen training session timings and reduce the amount of work you can achieve within an allotted time. On the other hand, high-rep training produces a lot of “burn” and many clients may not have a tolerance level to cope with it.
Jury’s take: If your primary goal is hypertrophy, 6-12 will always be the go-to rep range for you. But pushing your client out of the comfort zone and experimenting with higher or even lower reps could be a great tool for overcoming training plateaus.
Flexibility vs mobility
Let’s get this straight: Static stretching at the end of the workout may actually help to preserve or even increase the range of motion. Some research indicates developmental stretching, best done last thing at night, may actually aid recovery. Having said that, a ton of people have lax and unstable joints and pushing the ROM too much may actually injure the joints. We know that dynamic and active mobility work helps spread synovial fluid within the joints and is protective.
Jury’s take: Let’s take a leaf out of a J.L. Nuzzo’s book: “Incorporate a client-specific mix of active mobility and passive flexibility training based on their personal needs and preferences and the demands of their target activities.”
Remember....
Let’s avoid any kind of polarising attitude on fitness topics. Let’s keep an open mind and find a curated sweet spot — a mix of evidence and experience seems like the best blend. “The middle of the road is sometimes the most defensible position on most issues.”
Ranadeep Moitra is a strength and conditioning specialist and corrective exercise coach
Cardio versus metabolic resistance training