PhysicalCulture.canadian-forum.com
Some parts of the forum are not accessible to non-members, so be sure to join right away!

Post your training log, get involved in challenges, and add to our vault of fitness and physical culture wisdom!



Messages posted on this forum express the opinions of their respective authors and not necessarily those of anyone else. You agree to not hold anyone responsible for the content of any post but the author thereof and anyone who expresses agreement with him or her.

Messages with an attacking, demeaning or slanderous tone are prohibited.

Messages or usernames which promote, evoke or encourage unlawful, lewd or immoral practices are prohibited.

Vulgarities, curses and racial slurs as well as religious blasphemies, curses and exclamations, are offensive and neither pleasant nor welcome.

Copyrighted materials may not be posted without the express approval of the copyright holder, such approval to be displayed along with the content. If you notice material that is copyrighted but no permission is listed with it, you agree to report it to a moderator or to admin.

Post your messages only once. Double posting (this does not refer to accidentally replying twice to a post, but to creating multiple threads with identical content in multiple sections of the forum) is incredibly annoying and double posts will be deleted.

Make an effort on grammar and spelling. Using nothing but SMS-style language or l33t speech (ex: y r u h3re m8?) is unsophisticated, annoying and not welcome!

You accept that messages contravening the listing above may be edited or removed without need for notice and that transgressions deemed severe enough may be met with banning. Be helpful, kind and respectful to one another, and let's keep this community great!

Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Journeyman on Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:23 pm

A few programs from Dr. Ken:

"A program for gaining functional muscle"
Experience has taught me that the majority of trainees won't ever make the progress they envision for themselves because
1. they will not train as hard as possible
2. they do not believe that a program can be effective if it appears limited in the number of exercises
3. they will not train as hard as possible
4. they lack confidence in their ability to gain muscular strength and size
5. they will not train as hard as possible
.....
Squats-warmup of 10 reps then 1x8, once per month 1x50
Stifflegged deadlift-1x15-20, once per month 1x30
Overhead or bench press (alternate each workout)-2x6-8, once per month try max for 1-3 reps
barbell shrug 1x15-20
barbell curls 1-2x6-10, once per month 1x50
dips 1x6-10, once per month 1x50

I performed this program two times per week. I had originally planned on three training days weekly, but was always too sore or fatigued to benefit or even attempt a third training session. I ran a combination of sprints and distance four or five days per week while I utilized this routine and gained muscular bodyweight the whole time.

**This is a routine Leistner used in his late teens to go from 147 to 188 pounds at 5'57/8'' in roughly 5 months. He ate four times a day and had shakes made of eggs, whole milk, and low fat milk powder.
That's the jist of the article, I don't have time/am not bored enough to copy the whole thing down word for word.... :mrgreen:


Last edited by Journeyman on Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Journeyman
Exercise Encyclopedia
Exercise Encyclopedia

Posts : 2159
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2012-12-24

http://affectinggravity.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Journeyman on Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:30 pm

One of weight training's early recommendations for progression was the 50, 75, and 100% method. DeLorme originally proposed this, and it is brutally effective but extremely difficult. Caution should be taken to reduce the amount of work considerably after four to six weeks on this program
....
50%10RM x10
75% 10RMx10
100% 10RM x10
....
I used only those exercises that worked the major muscular structures of the body, and limited the number of movements for obvious reasons. The last set of ten was taken to failure no matter how many reps were actually done. I trained the hips/thighs and low back only twice per week to avoid overtraining and injury, and even this precaution did not prevent extreme soreness and stiffness from being a constant companion
....
Here is the exact program I used for six weeks, one that brought excellent gains but which has proven to be one of the most difficult routines I have ever subjected myself to....
Days 1 and 3
squats 180x10, 270x10, 360x10
stifflegged deadlift off of a high block 165x10, 245x10, 330x10
Standing overhead press 100x10, 140x10, 185x10
Upright row 60x10, 90x10, 120x10
Dips 60x10, 90x10, 120x10
Situps 45x15, two sets

Day 2
bench press 150x10, 220x10, 295x10
chins 20x10, 30x10, 40x10
anvil lift (lifted from floor to shoulder) approximately 170 pounds, 1x10
barbell curls 50x10, 75x10, 105x10
side bends 45lb plate x30 reps, two sets
....
I did not make spectacular gains in the weights used, although my squat did improve significantly and I did get very strong, it was almost impossible to demonstrate that strength on this program. Within two weeks of ceasing this routine, I deadlifted 440 pounds for 17 repetitions, at a bodyweight of 155 pounds, a performance that I have never since equalled or approached....
avatar
Journeyman
Exercise Encyclopedia
Exercise Encyclopedia

Posts : 2159
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2012-12-24

http://affectinggravity.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Journeyman on Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:38 pm

"Simple progression"
** again, article highlights, I don't have the time/motivation to type out the whole thing word for word!

....
If you did nothing but barbell curls for bicep and forearm flexor development, and continuously did the exercise in the best of form, always added repetitions or weight to the bar as you became able to comfortably handle the load or do the guide number of repetitions, and eventually were able to properly curl 180-200 pounds for ten to twenty repetitions, the involved muscles would be as big as your genetic potential allowed....
The necessity of consistently working hard on a limited number of basic exercises that give stimulation to the major muscular structures of the body, and striving to be truly progressive while training, was made clear when I moved into a small, one room bungalow on the beach many years ago. The only training facility available to me was the olympic set and squat racks I placed in the center of this room.... I can honestly say that I was able to become as strong as I ever had been, or ever became later, relative to bodyweight. My program was done ten times per month; three workouts one week, two workouts the next, doing workout A one day and workout B on the next training day.

Workout A
Squat warmups, 1x15
Stiffleg deadlift 1x15
Overhead pres 1x10
Bentover row 1x8
Pushups-maximum number in one minute
Barbell curl 1x8
Side bends 1x15 to each side

Workout B
Squat 1x30
Upright row 1x12
Press behind neck warmups, 1x8
Shrug 1x12
Dips (between heavy chairs) 1x6
Reverse curls 1x8
Situps 1x15

....
I would have enjoyed the opportunity to bench press on occasion, and do heavy chins, but they weren't necessary to progress.... I augmented this training with runs on the beach or boardwalk, varying the distance from one and one half miles, to six miles, two to four times per week....
avatar
Journeyman
Exercise Encyclopedia
Exercise Encyclopedia

Posts : 2159
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2012-12-24

http://affectinggravity.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Cesar on Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:41 pm

thanks JMAN...i will take a look at it later...only time to skim through
avatar
Cesar
Unsurpassed
Unsurpassed

Posts : 4349
Reputation : 50
Join date : 2012-12-01
Location : Albany, NY

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Journeyman on Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:45 pm

Squat cycle for powerlifting (Ken coached a number of successful powerlifters) showing how high rep squats can be incorporated. Yeah there's an article to go with this one too but the program is pretty self explanatory.

Week 1, 2, 3:
day 1 1-2 sets x15-20 reps
day 2 same as day 1

Weeks 4, 5, 6:
day 1 1-2 sets x10 reps
day 2 1-2 sets x5 reps

Weeks 7, 8, 9
day 1 1-2 sets x8-10 reps
day 2 3-5 sets x1-3 reps

Weeks 10, 11
day 1 2 sets x3-5 reps, 1x10 reps
day 2 2x singles, 90-95%

Weeks 12, 13
day 1 2 sets x1-2 reps, 1 set x8 reps
day 2 no squats

week 14: moderate singles 6 days before contest

**All high rep squats are breathing-style. If there's more than one set, decrease the weight just enough that you can make the required reps on set #2. If you're hardened and experienced with high rep squatting, Leistner often advised taking the second set to complete failure, which might involve doing more reps than the first set.
Thus, a squat workout might look something like this: (taken in part from another article)

warmup:
1. light jog for 10 minutes
2. squat 154x8
3. jumping over a pile of tires, benches, etc.
4. squat 242x4
5. squat 330x2
6. squat 386x1
workout:
415x8.
*If there was a second set, it might've been 375x12 (to failure) or thereabouts.
avatar
Journeyman
Exercise Encyclopedia
Exercise Encyclopedia

Posts : 2159
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2012-12-24

http://affectinggravity.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Journeyman on Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:47 pm

**Full article of his.

Sensible Training - A Logical Approach to Size and Strength

by Dr. Ken E. Leistner

With all the numerous changes that have taken place in the field of weight training over the years it has never been truer that "the more things change the more they remain the same". Armed with the accurate information collected over the years it is possible for anyone to improve their strength, their muscular endurance (to a certain extent), their cardiovascular endurance, and their appearance (a subjective evaluation) if the interested party is willing to take the brief time necessary to analyze the conditions necessary for inducing muscular growth stimulation.

The requirements haven't changed over the years, and the nonsense put forth by the commercially interested and biased parties hasn't changed either. But most importantly, the irrational approach taken towards training hasn't changed a great deal either, and has prevented the vast majority of weight trainees from reaping even a small portion of the possible benefits made available by the use of the barbell.

Robert Sizer, a former pro-football player, All-American at Richmond University and at one time the most outstanding high school football player in the state of Virginia, was perhaps the first successful athlete in the area to pursue weight training in an attempt to improve his athletic ability at a time that this was believed to make one "musclebound", slow and uncoordinated.

Sizer was an 180lb offensive lineman, that by accounts was stronger and faster than most men weighing 250lbs at the time. At 15 YEARS OF AGE he could squat with 450 lbs (for reps), and bench press 420 lbs.

Sizer trained with a barbell fashioned out of concrete wheels that his father made for him. In the beginning he admitted he didn't really know what he was doing. "All" he did was train hard and brief with heavy weights on the major exercises.

Remarked Sizer:

"Unfortunately, as I became exposed to more people who were involved with training, I left my old methods behind and became bogged down in a progress- stifling method, or more accurately, methods of training...No one showed me how to train; I just went at it like I did everything else, and the hard work on each and every set brought results. But when I saw the other fellows doing things a bit differently, I adopted many of their techniques, not to my benefit".

The point? There are basic considerations one has to take into account when inducing muscular growth stimulation, and this, of course, is the whole point of utilizing weights. Some of the necessary conditions that must be met for optimal results are:

- using heavy movements over a full range of motion - continuing every set of every exercise to a point of momentary but complete muscular failure - using "basic" exercises, i.e, compound movements that work the major muscular structures of the body, like the squat. - training at a level of maximum intensity - limiting the amount of work done - providing the necessary requirements for growth to occur - ensuring that the exercise is truly progressive

Much of this is so obvious that it needs no further explanation, but considering the almost unbelievable amount of false information available, without such a basic understanding the trainee will not be able to formulate a program that will bring results in a manner that is proportionate with the effort expended.

The only way to produce maximum possible increases in muscle tissue mass is by the production of maximum power. This can only be done by utilizing exercises that engage as much of the particular mass as is possible, and only when working over a full range of possible motion. And while it is almost impossilbe to engage 100% of the available fibers, much more growth stimulation will occur if the exercise is carried out over as great a range as is possible. This also assists in the development of increased flexibility, as a heavy weight will pull the involved bodyparts into a fully extended position at the beginning of the movement and will also provide "prestretching" of that involved muscle. It is now apparent that the most important requirement for inducing maximum growth is intensity.

Carrying an exercise to the point of momentary but complete failure ensures that one is training at a point of greatest possible intensity (assuming that the trainee is putting forth effort and "not going through the motions" and thus "failing" long before reaching a point of actual muscular failure). There is no way to gauge the amount of effort being put forth unless one goes to the point of failure. That implies, simply, that 100% of momentary possible effort was put forth.

Also, it is only by working this hard that one can engage the maximum possible amount of muscle fibers. And unless this maximum amount of fibers is worked, growth will be retarded, if not impossible. Many trainees fear this. They are afraid of working as hard as is actually required, and thus they often return to their prior methods of training improperly. It is much easire to perform 4 sets of 8 reps of a particular movement than it is to complete one set *correctly*; for example, doing 15 reps in proper form to a point where it is momentarily impossible to move the barbell with the involved bodypart.

I recently had the "pleasure" of training (for only one session, thankfully) with one of the leading bodybuilders in the United States. I convinced him to try "my way" of doing things, and he finally consented. I coaxed him through a set of leg presses, using approximately 300lbs, and he completed 18 reps. This was followed by a set of full squats, using a fairly light weight (approx. 185 lbs), and he terminated the set long before his strength had been taxed. We then did standing presses and chins, and he did manage to go to a point of failure, although he did take momentary "breaks" during the sets to complain that the "weight is just too light to feel so heavy" and other such gems of wisdom.

The result? He called me the next day to tell me that he was very sore but that he was going to return to his prior method of training because "your way is just too hard". He further admitted that he thought that I was correct - trainng to failure, using a weight, any weight that would allow a reasonable number of repetitions, was the proper way to train - but that he preferred an admittedly improper training method because it was "easier". I explained that while the human body could be damaged by doing "too much work," the body's defense mechanisms made it almost impossible to bring about injury by training "too hard. You'll regurgitate or faint before you cause any real damage to the body, *if* you trained even that hard," I said.

"Well, I'll just stick to what I'm doing," he said. "But, hey, thanks for the time you gave me." Indeed. (And I should of course point out that "my way" of training is not really *my* way. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the development of such common sense principles. I've just had the sense to utilize what is rational, correct, and result-producing).

Common sense would indicate that if one is training at the proper level of intensity, an increased amount of work would be neither desirable nor possible. ONE set of 15-20 reps in the full squat, performed with proper form and done until the trainee can no longer rise from the full squat position, will do more for building the strength and size of the involved muscles than any such number of improperly performed sets of any other leg exercises, including the full squat. And how many sets of full squats, done as described, do you think you could perform in a single workout? How many such sets would you *want* to perform? Thus it becomes obvious that the amount of work must be limited.

One also walks a very thin line in inducing muscular growth. You must work hard enough to induce growth, but not so extensively as to deplete a very definite (but unknown) amount of recovery ability. One can train properly in that all exercises are performed in correct style, taken to a point of momentary failure, etc., but if too much work is done, the system will not be able to provide the necessary factors for growth. Yet many trainees train four, five, six and sometimes even more per week.

Athletes who are preparing for a season of activity will express surprise that they progressed little while lifting weights three or four days per week, running distance and sprints on their "off" days and practicing the skills needed for their particular activity an additional two or three times per week. Their ability to recover has been depleted, and until that ability is restored, no amount of additional work will induce muscular increases. Thus training must be limited to no more than three days/week and in some cases only two/week. And for some extreme cases, training once per week will serve to induce maximal amounts of growth.

Why so-called compound movements? Before I actually knew anything about proper training (and this is not to imply that I know even a fraction of what there is to know now), I realized that there was something, an indefinable something, that wasn't "right" about a number of bodybuilders who trained in the gym where I also trained. (This is not to be misconstrued as a criticism of all bodybuilders. Many have a great deal of athletic ability and fine, athletic-appearing physiques.)

One such man was an advanced trainee (in the sense that he had been training a number of years and had won a number of local physique titles). However, he was missing a certain athletic quality, a harmonious look. My brother put the finger on it when he observed, "He looks like a bunch of bodyparts pasted together. He's all there, big and all, but the total picture looks awkward-no grace, no glow, no..." The point had been made.

The human body's muscular structures are such that I was amazed at the first autopsy I witnessed. After reading GRAY'S ANATOMY and seeing a number of anatomy charts, I had assumed that one could discern individual muscles. This isn't the case. They are so interbound and interwoven, it becomes obvious why so many years of medical training are necessary to figure the entire mystery out. Muscles work in conjunction with each other. Furthermore, greatest growth stimulation will come by working the largest muscles in the body. A secondary growth effect occurs when the major muscle masses are worked, and the statement that the "small muscles will take care of themselves if you work the big ones" is true because of this effect. Thus the greatest possible growth will occur if movements are employed that will engage the major muscular structures of the body. (More on the selection of exact exercises, later).

In addition to inducing growth stimulation, other factors are necessary for increasing the amount of muscle tissue mass. These include sleep, nutrition, and a number of psychological variables such as motivation, resistance to pain and "psyching up", amoung others. Each of these factors is important.

Though the term "progressive exercise" has been used as a catchall to describe weight training activities, most trainees rarely make any attempt to actually have progressive and productive workouts. The "theory" is so logical as to be almost ridiculous, yet it is so often, if not always overlooked. If one were to add 5 lbs to the barbell every two or three workouts, or add another repetition, performed in proper style, with the same weight one used in the preceding workout, growth would occur (assuming that all other previously mentioned factors were taken into consideration and those considerations met), as the system would be constantly exposed to an ever-increasing load. This is progression.

Arthur Jones stated that, with curls as the example when it is possible for a trainee to curl 200 lbs in good form *without* body swing, "then his arms will be as large as they need to be for any possible purpose connected with any sport just short of wrestling bears". This sums up progression pretty well.

I am fond of telling doubting trainees that it's just a matter of always adding weight to the bar, adding another repetition, "If you could get to the point where you're squatting 400lbs for 20 reps, stiff-legged deadlifting 400 lbs for 15 reps, curling 200 for 10 reps, pressing 200 for 10 reps, doing 10 dips with 300 lbs around your waist, and chinning with 100 pounds, don't you think you would be big - I mean awfully big? And strong?" Obviously!

Knowing the basic considerations, it is possible to construct a sensible weight-training program, one that will serve almost anyone's purpose. However, to further clarify matters, I will discuss the choice of the actual exercises. Some are more result-producing than others, and some are also less dangerous.

The available equipment should include a barbell, a squat rack (or some type of high stand that can be used to support a barbell), an overhead bar (or pipe) for the purpose of chinning and two pipes, heavy chairs or parallel bars for the purpose of performing parallel bar dips. If more equipment is available, fine; it will add variety to the program. But more equipment is not necessary to build one to his maximum possible size and strength. The best exercises for the major musculature structures of the body are full squats, stiff-legged deadlifts, standing presses, chins with the palms facing you, parallel bar dips, barbell curls, bent- over rowing motions, pullovers on a bench, shrugs and situps. (I include this exercise only as a means of covering the entire body. The abdominals will receive quite enough work during the performance of other exercises.)

A very productive program would look like this:

1) Full Squats - 15-20 reps 2) Pullovers - 10 reps 3) Standing Presses - 10 reps 4) Chins - 10 reps 5) Dips - 12 reps 6) Barbell Curls - 10 reps 7) Shrugs - 15 reps 8 ) Stiff-Legged Deadlifts - 15 reps

How many sets of each exercise? One. Two. Certainly never more than three, and if you are working properly, one set of most of these exercises should be more than enough for anyone. Why are these exercises chosen as opposed to some others? Very frankly, personal preference has much to do with this. However, some considerations may clarify my prejudices.

There are no bench presses recommended. Contrary to popular belief the bench press is not a very good exercise for the development of the pectoral muscles. It is fairly good for the development of the anterior deltoid and triceps, but the standing press develops these muscles as well or better (better being defined as more quickly, more directly, with the production of more power or work during an actual repetition of the exercise), as does the parallel bar dip. However, if you care to do bench presses or presses behind the neck in a standing position, feel free to do so. Perhaps you can alternate pressing movements every few weeks, every few workouts, every other workout. You will never suffer from lack of variety.

Why chins with palms facing (curl grip)? While some prefer chins to a behind-the-neck position with a palms-pronated grip, the curl grip gives a higher order of work to the biceps and a greater range of movement to the latissimus muscles. Why stiff-legged deadlifts as opposed to regular deadlifts or cleans? Again, substitute the regular deadlift on occasion, but bear in mind that the stiff-legged deadlift gives the spinal erectors and biceps femoris more direct work than the regular deadlift. The "power clean", while valuable for some purposes, is not necessary for the development of the muscles in question, and due to the speed of movement it places unnecessary demands on the connective tissue of the involved bodyparts.

Obviously there is room for deviation in the choice of exercises. One can at times substitute one pressing movement for another, use dumbbells instead of a barbell, etc. However, the basic routine should be utilized with little alteration, as all the major muscular structures of the body will receive maximal growth stimulation (and if previously mentioned points are taken into consideration).

How often should one train with this program? A maximum of three times weekly. For some, two sessions a week will provide the necessary stimulation without exceeding the recovery ability. Perhaps three workouts one week, two the following week. It is expected that the intelligent individual will be able to discern for himself what is necessary. (It does constantly amaze me, though, how many persons, "intelligent" in other areas, successful in their professions, are helpless in approaching their training and yet are perfectly willing to pursue a course that is unproductive for years). Any time that progress is not forthcoming analyze your approach and if any changes need to be made, it will probably along the lines of reducing the amount of work being done.

If the precepts put forth here seem simple, it is only because they are. Complexly so. Unfortunately, most trainees do not want to hear the simple truth. They feel safer looking endlessly for secrets, miracle potions - almost anything other than admitting that they are not willing to work *hard* enough for the results they desire (a rather common condition actually, but one most often denied).

An example? I was in a very well equipped athletic training center in Minnesota a few months ago and was approached by a young man of approximately 25 years of age. After speaking with him for a few moments, I recalled that I had instructed him in the use of proper exercise style while working with one of the [now defunct] World Football League teams. This athlete had been an outstanding player at a small Midwestern college but had been released by the professional club. We spoke:

"I haven't really been doing too well lately. I want my arms to be bigger," he said. I noticed that they were fairly large already and remarked that perhaps they were as big as they would ever get, in muscular condition, at his present bodyweight. "Well they were once alot bigger."

He told me that he weighed approximately 25 lbs more at that time than he did presently. I pointed this out and told him that his arms had been larger then, as had the rest of his muscular structures.

"But I was fat at that weight," he said. I repeated that perhaps his arms were as large as they were going to be in muscular condition, considering his height, and other hereditary factors, length of muscle, etc. "I won't accept that. They have to get bigger!" As it was, he refused to train his legs and lower back as "I think those parts are already big enough." This was a well-educated young man who had "been around" was doing graduate work in a related field (related to weight training) and yet displayed a somewhat less than rationale attitude to his training.

One more example? A former lacrosse and football player who had been, a number of years prior to our conversation, moderately successful in physique competition and, when initially beginning his weight training activities fairly strong (as evidenced by a bench press of a single rep of close to 400lbs).

"I'm tired of changing my routine every week. There must be some answer," he said. Unfortunately, he trained in a gym with a current Mr. Universe titleholder. "[blank] suggested that I do more chest work." I suggested he stop wasting his time and perhaps attempt a routine very similar to the one outlined above. He agreed and struggled through it, using 150 lbs for 12 squats, 30 lb dumbbells for his pressing and similar weights for the remainder of the routine.

"You mean to tell me that after 10 YEARS of fairly continuous training, that's your limit? You're using 1/4 the weight you used 8 years ago." I was incredulous.

"I know I'm having trouble believing it myself." was his response.

"If this is the result of so-called proper training, you ought to let it go and concentrate on becoming a millionaire." He was college-educated, was in possession of two advanced graduate degrees, and highly successful at his chosen profession.

"But Frank [blank, bodybuilder with some titles] told me that I didn't need to do any really heavy movements for development." I merely told him to look at the workout that he had just taken, compare the results of his efforts over the previous 10 years of training, and evaluate the validity of his method. "Well, I don't know. If I could just win one contest it would have been worthwhile".

Rational? What is too high a price to pay? It wouldn't be as absurd as it is if all of the wasted effort wasn't totally unnecessary. As Bob Sizer remarked:

"If I would have know what proper training consisted of, if someone would have been there to show me, I would have taken everything to failure, would have done a few basic exercises and probably would still be playing football. Even at my age." He smiled.

It's for Bob Sizer and the many people like him that this article was written.
avatar
Journeyman
Exercise Encyclopedia
Exercise Encyclopedia

Posts : 2159
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2012-12-24

http://affectinggravity.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Journeyman on Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:57 pm

Observations by me on his general training style:

-train HARD. All out, not necessarily all the time but most of the time.
-prioritize compound movements. Squats (full squats, but not bounced O-lift style squats)are king, stiffleg deadlifts (with a slighly rounded back, standing on a platform) are a close second.
-Chins should take precedence over curls, and overhead presses and dips over bench.
-Most workouts involve just one set of each exercise. Usually squat, SLDL, then pushing and pulling exercises alternated e.g. press, chin, bench, bent row or log press, shrug, dip, curl
-Usually sticks with sets of 5-12 for upper body and 10-30 for lower body unless it's prep for powerlifting
-If you stall, you aren't working hard enough.
-The sensible corollary to the above is that you might have to change something. Going from 1x15 for your squats, to working on a top set of 30 for a while can get things moving again; as can switching the order of the exercises (squats usually go first though!) or changing the exercises themselves; from squat to leg press or from bench to dip or whatever.
-Machines are fine, especially the leverage type machines.
-Isolation exercises are fine too, especially curls, calf raises, ab and forearm work, and shrugs. Leistner primarily trained football players so he wanted to build everything.
-He didn't like explosive movements, like power cleans, plyometrics etc. He said that fiber types were a matter of genetics and everything could be solved by getting stronger.
-He also said there was a difference between demonstrating strength (i.e. max singles) and building strength (moderate rep sets taken to or near to failure, fully fatiguing all involved muscle groups).
-Most programs involved training 2 or 3 times each week, taking as long as necessary to recover, though training while sore was fine.
-He generally didn't use forced reps, drop sets, rest-pause, counting seconds to extent time under tension, and other techniques that later became popular with HIT.
-Thus, basically he fits in well with john mccallum, bradley steiner, arthur jones (before he went off the deep end) and guys like dorian yates; in terms of training philosophy.
avatar
Journeyman
Exercise Encyclopedia
Exercise Encyclopedia

Posts : 2159
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2012-12-24

http://affectinggravity.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Journeyman on Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:01 pm

Inca Warrior wrote:thanks JMAN...i will take a look at it later...only time to skim through

No problem man, there's been a bit of interest in high rep training lately, especially squats, so I figured now was a good time to share this with y'all.
avatar
Journeyman
Exercise Encyclopedia
Exercise Encyclopedia

Posts : 2159
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2012-12-24

http://affectinggravity.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Cesar on Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:09 pm

Brain overload...lots of great material there, Jman.
Simple but hard to follow through with.

I need a squat rack or stands...

Thank you for taking the time to compile.
avatar
Cesar
Unsurpassed
Unsurpassed

Posts : 4349
Reputation : 50
Join date : 2012-12-01
Location : Albany, NY

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Cesar on Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:10 pm

Journeyman wrote:
Inca Warrior wrote:thanks JMAN...i will take a look at it later...only time to skim through

No problem man, there's been a bit of interest in high rep training lately, especially squats, so I figured now was a good time to share this with y'all.

It looks a bit or more like what squatty is doing...but not as high in reps but higher in weight.

I will have to give it a try.
avatar
Cesar
Unsurpassed
Unsurpassed

Posts : 4349
Reputation : 50
Join date : 2012-12-01
Location : Albany, NY

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Journeyman on Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:15 pm

Inca Warrior wrote:

It looks a bit or more like what squatty is doing...but not as high in reps but higher in weight.

Yep. Well, when I started reading ken leistner's stuff all I had was a sandbag. He had an article on 50-rep training, shooting for sets of 50 reps so I began doing that with the sandbag and also with the super high rep SLDL/RBRDL. I think I advised 100x100 for the RBRDL for anyone who wanted to do heavy roundback deadlifts. And Squat liked it and began doing it with, like, EVERYTHING :lol:
So, not like I can take credit for what SSG is doing now, but I think it originated from leistner's ideas too.

Paul Carter (LRB), who does 100 rep assistance work, also read a lot of leistner apparently, he uses some of dr ken's methods like '50 percent sets' in some of his own programs.
avatar
Journeyman
Exercise Encyclopedia
Exercise Encyclopedia

Posts : 2159
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2012-12-24

http://affectinggravity.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Cesar on Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:20 pm

Def. Leistner makes a lot of sense and per SSG, it works for him. It builds strength, size and conditioning.
avatar
Cesar
Unsurpassed
Unsurpassed

Posts : 4349
Reputation : 50
Join date : 2012-12-01
Location : Albany, NY

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by itlives on Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:14 pm

I liked that article and his thoughts are based on real results. It's hard to mount an argument (not that I want to) against his training.
I may change the 5 X 5 Southwood program I've been doing to this Leistner 1 set to failure type workout.
avatar
itlives
Moderator, Selective Germaphobe
Moderator, Selective Germaphobe

Posts : 4244
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2012-11-30
Age : 61
Location : Shreveport Louisiana

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Cesar on Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:37 pm

Awesome...let's see how it works for you
avatar
Cesar
Unsurpassed
Unsurpassed

Posts : 4349
Reputation : 50
Join date : 2012-12-01
Location : Albany, NY

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Journeyman on Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:34 pm

itlives wrote:I liked that article and his thoughts are based on real results. It's hard to mount an argument (not that I want to) against his training.
I may change the 5 X 5 Southwood program I've been doing to this Leistner 1 set to failure type workout.

Cool, I'll keep an eye on how it's going. Supposedly it's a bit better for your joints, higher reps, more moderate weight, if something goes screwy you're not standing under a max lift... good for 'armor building', too.
It's definitely possible to mount an argument against this training style, of course.
avatar
Journeyman
Exercise Encyclopedia
Exercise Encyclopedia

Posts : 2159
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2012-12-24

http://affectinggravity.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Dave on Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:28 am

Mike, do it up. It's definitely time for something new.
avatar
Dave
Admin
Admin

Posts : 7971
Reputation : 169
Join date : 2012-11-30
Age : 36
Location : Peterborough, Canada

http://physicalculture.canadian-forum.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by itlives on Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:55 pm

Dave.cyco wrote:Mike, do it up. It's definitely time for something new.

I tried it a bit last night. I can see why some people don't like it. I reached failure on one set way before I wanted to! I think 2 sets to failure would be for me. Also, my low weight numbers are even lower and that really is an ego blow! Ok old man, deal with it :lol: !


avatar
itlives
Moderator, Selective Germaphobe
Moderator, Selective Germaphobe

Posts : 4244
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2012-11-30
Age : 61
Location : Shreveport Louisiana

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Journeyman on Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:38 pm

Just one set, and maybe don't go quite to failure when you start out, just go very very hard... after a few weeks you can start pushing over the edge like 50% of the time or something.
avatar
Journeyman
Exercise Encyclopedia
Exercise Encyclopedia

Posts : 2159
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2012-12-24

http://affectinggravity.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Dave on Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:11 am

Right, use a weight light enough that you know you'll hit 50 reps with a bit of guts, like I did with my first day of 50 rep squats. Time yourself, and once you can do it in a certain time without putting the weight down (say 5:00 for squats) you know you can increase it by 5-10 pounds on your next session, which could be in 3-7 days, depending on the weights you are using, recovery, etc.
avatar
Dave
Admin
Admin

Posts : 7971
Reputation : 169
Join date : 2012-11-30
Age : 36
Location : Peterborough, Canada

http://physicalculture.canadian-forum.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Journeyman on Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:19 am

Hm. Mike, are you doing the 50-rep sets thing or the 8-12 upper, 15-30 lower deal?
avatar
Journeyman
Exercise Encyclopedia
Exercise Encyclopedia

Posts : 2159
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2012-12-24

http://affectinggravity.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Dave on Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:43 am

Oh sorry I assumed 50 reps...
avatar
Dave
Admin
Admin

Posts : 7971
Reputation : 169
Join date : 2012-11-30
Age : 36
Location : Peterborough, Canada

http://physicalculture.canadian-forum.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by itlives on Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:46 am

I had to go back and read it again. I was going from memory and what I thought he said. This is what he actually said-

ONE set of 15-20 reps in the full squat, performed with proper form and done until the trainee can no longer rise from the full squat position, will do more for building the strength and size of the involved muscles than any such number of improperly performed sets of any other leg exercises, including the full squat.

I was thinking a single set of 15-25 (bad memory). I also carried the same numbers to my OHP. I also "remembered" 80% of max. So, I got to 15 reps on squats and 12 (I think) on OHP.
I think the plan good, but couldn't help myself and did two sets. I don't want to be all over the board on weights but want to try different approaches to see how they work on me.

Dave- I don't think 50 reps is good for me -unless it's BW conditining.
I think lower reps/ higher weight is what I need most.
avatar
itlives
Moderator, Selective Germaphobe
Moderator, Selective Germaphobe

Posts : 4244
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2012-11-30
Age : 61
Location : Shreveport Louisiana

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Journeyman on Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:47 pm

Well, there you go. Report back with results!
avatar
Journeyman
Exercise Encyclopedia
Exercise Encyclopedia

Posts : 2159
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2012-12-24

http://affectinggravity.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ken Leistner (for CV and who it may concern...)

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum