Other/Mixed Two Move versus Multi Move Programs

[Kozushi]

I got strong (I think I can claim I've "gotten strong" to some degree or other) over the past 3.5 years following basically S&S plus some auxiliary moves, which are also taken from 2 move Pavel programs.

However, there are people who follow multi-move programs and get strong too, in a different way maybe, but they're there of course.

I'd like to ask what you all think the relative merits are of the two approaches.

I'm currently experimenting with a wide variety of bodyweight moves while keeping a focus on the two key ones in the Naked Warrior program.

 

[Alan Mackey]

I like minimalist programs... within reason.

Any program I'm willing to follow must have, at the very least, four lifts:

- One lower body pull.
- One upper body pull.
- One lower body push.
- One upper body push.

The moment any of those lifts stall, I switch to another variation.

Another approach I use quite often is:

Session A
- Lower body pull.
- Upper body horizontal push.
- Upper body vertical pull.

Session B
- Lower body push.
- Upper body horizontal pull.
- Upper body vertical push.

Finally, the most complex type of program I'm willing to follow is:

Session A: load moving vertically from above.
- Back squat.
- Overhead press.
- Pull Up.

Session B: load moving horizontally from or to my body.
- Hip thrust.
- Bench press.
- Bent over row.

Session C: load moving vertically from below.
- Deadlift.
- Dip.
- Curl.

All the above are minimalist-ish programs which have worked rather well for me.

This doesn't mean a truly barebones program like PttP won't work (it does), but I need more variety to stave off boredom and to avoid overuse injuries.

 

[Nate]

S&S was effective while I could maintain it but I did notice small compensations that became repetative with only 1 hand swings. But i feel fine if i cycle in 2 hand swings, 1 hand swings, cleans & snatches. Same but different both physically and mentally. I can't maintain a KB Ballistic + Squat/Push day & TGU + Hamstring/Pull day. It's still push pull squat hinge carry (i count tgu as a carry) with the vast majority of work in ballistics and tgus. It may compromise the daily practice benefit but the consistency is solid 6 days per week.

 

[vegpedlr]

I’ve been wondering about the practicality of two move programs. Why only two? It seems having three moves would cover a lot more ground without undue cost.

Personally, I like Dan John’s basic human movements of push, pull, hinge, and squat done as Easy Strength. Or, clean, Press, FSQ. Or the DMPM.

Doesn’t S&S mix in some other moves so that it is more than just swings and get ups?

 

[Kozushi]

I’ve been wondering about the practicality of two move programs. Why only two? It seems having three moves would cover a lot more ground without undue cost.

Personally, I like Dan John’s basic human movements of push, pull, hinge, and squat done as Easy Strength. Or, clean, Press, FSQ.

Doesn’t S&S mix in some other moves so that it is more than just swings and get ups?

The two move only philosophy is interesting and it is what got me to where I am now. I think at this point though that it is time to get a bit broader.
This is how I am seeing things now:

You can indeed, and remarkably so, do only (or virtually only) two move programs like S&S, ROP, PTTP, even NW, that cover your whole body's musculature. The conundrum is to what degree you are developing all your muscles. Some are getting developed more than others and for some directions more than others. This may not be a problem if your goal is to get simply "strong and fit", as they are proven to suffice for this (and I think this is a fair goal even if it seems blurry to some - after all it has always been my goal!) Also, why must one develop all muscles and all directions of strength equally? Is this even natural? Probably not! A big pull and a push of some kind seems to work quite well. This also I think is well proven through the clear results of these programs.

But, I can't for the life of me see why it would be bad to get good at more than just a few moves. Some moves can take priority for whatever reason (scientific or you just like them or they are more accessible or whatever) and some can take less, but covering more directions of strength and movements can't be a bad thing.

For instance, military press, bench press and dips are all presses, but you are pushing up, forward and down - they are all different in this sense. The dips lift you off the ground and the others do not. They are all different. I don't see what would be wrong with training all three of them. Pushups are different from the bench press of course too, and headstand pushups from the military press - you're upside down! All different stuff! In judo we're moving in all sorts of creative and weird ways. I don't think this is bad for me. Archer (side to side) pushups are different as are one arm pushups and one arm one leg pushups. These are all different movements and develop different paths of strength in your body. Also, just loading more weight on yourself isn't a reason to neglect exercises with less weight. Doing 2 arm pushups for more reps and many sets has its own benefits compared with 1 arm pushups for few reps. Of course, boredom, fatigue etc are reasons to prefer variety, not disputing this, although I like having other reasons than these.

Of course, the point of minimalist 2 move programs isn't that these are the only things you should do but that they are all you really need to do to get strong in the most important ways.

But let's take kettlebells (I'm leaving off focus on these for a bit to concentrate on the NW and other bodyweight moves these days but I'll get back to them later). How would one go wrong to do a workout of three sets of each exercise at less than your max number of reps, at an appropriate weight? Maybe divided into two workouts, done twice a week:

• snatches
• swings
• TGUs
• clean and presses
• military presses
• double clean and press
• double rack squat
• goblet squat
• windmill even?

Just theorizing of course.

 

[Nate]

I’ve been wondering about the practicality of two move programs. Why only two? It seems having three moves would cover a lot more ground without undue cost.

Personally, I like Dan John’s basic human movements of push, pull, hinge, and squat done as Easy Strength. Or, clean, Press, FSQ. Or the DMPM.

Doesn’t S&S mix in some other moves so that it is more than just swings and get ups?

3*5 Goblet squats are before swings and the tgu includes a uni lateral squat (lunge). Some argue it's missing a push but if you think about tonic and phasic muscle argument, both the delts and triceps get a lot of work with heavy tgus so maybe that's not a huge issue to some...

 

[Antti]

I like to see it as not a question of how many lifts, or the two lifts in this case, but a question of low frequency and high frequency. Since our recovery capabilities are limited, we can't have many exercises and high frequency.

To me, high frequency is great for practising the skill part of the lift. It is great to thoroughly drill in a new lift with high frequency.

Big part of it is the weight used. In a new lift, the weights are relatively small, as one is learning the ropes. This permits higher frequency. The better one gets, the heavier the lifts get, and demand more rest.

Also, at some point, if we want to advance in a specific exercise, we have to learn the second part of the skill of lifting: lifting it when it gets really heavy, straining under a new rep max weight. That doesn't go well with high frequency either.

If you look at PTTP, there's a reason why Pavel says something along "buy a 300lbs set of plates and a barbell".

 

[Glen]

From someone who felt they became broken just focusing on three lifts (SBD) I now lean more towards having more movements in my program when I can.

Two people who I think I have done well to break human movement down into its simplistic basic units are Chek and Starrett. Starrett is more focused on can you obtain these positions rather than focusing on load these positions through movement (look up his archetypes).

Cheks primal movements of
*squat
*bend to extend (hip hinge)
* pull
* push
* lunge
* rotation (antirotation)
* gait (carries, crawls)

If we train all of these we cover pretty much all the muscles. S+S with its warm up does a brilliant job of ensuring all are covered between swings and get ups (in part because the get up rocks)

I think the biggest thing is not so much the program (as often these are minimilist programs) but how the program sits with your other activities and sports.

Those who do more sports and other activities can get away with doing minimilist programs, those who Only do gym based programs will tend to find gaps. Possibly why the new course of resilience helps.

As always the answer is it depends on you and your lifestyle/ other hobbies

 

[pet']

Hello,

Here is an interesting D. John's article about the different pattern which have to be addressed in a training routine (there are all mentioned in the above posts):
Five Movements That Will Make An Impact Overnight

From my very modest experience, a few moves which cover the whole body such as deadlifts and ovh press or even NW which is a squat motion instead of a hip motion may get the job done. Indeed, I noticed that heavy press and DL transfer quite well to "complex" move such as TGU quite well.

Kind regards,

Pet'

 

[North Coast Miller]

I currently and for a number of years now, use an 8 move routine based on push,pull,hinge,squat. Instead of varying the load or set/rep scheme using the same lifts, I use lifts that target the same movement but have different characteristics that achieve the same (approximate) effect.

So technically a 4 movement pattern routine, with 2 versions of each, plus some supplemental isometric and mobility/conditioning work. For me this allows a fair amount of relative volume, yet consistently maintain high intensity of effort.

Personality wise you couldn't sell me on 2 lift program for any length of time.

For general fitness I'm not so sure it matters one way or the other as long as the two lifts you chose fit well with your goals. I am a firm believer that exercise selection IS every bit as important as any other factor.

 

[pet']

Hello,

@North Coast Miller
In this case, regarding grinds, what do you think about "complex" moves such as get ups and bent presses ? Indeed, once you include them in a strength routine, they are quite "general" but eventually super time-effective (work the whole body). Of course, they can not beat specific moves such as DL…

The same logic may apply as well to ballistics, such as snatches, swings, C&J, etc.…

Kind regards,

Pet'

 

[North Coast Miller]

@pet'
I'll be honest, I have a tough time slotting them in with my current routine.

You could dissect it and say "if I take the Bent Press to a squat, then it counts as a squat pattern/TGU counts as a lunge etc" but unfortunately they tax the upper body too, so you cannot just jump into the next pull or push without taking it into account.

The same to some extent with ballistics, as you aren't really targeting specific movement that fits into one of the categories without overlap, with exception of swings maybe.

I have been plugging these in on a rotation and doing them separately as a metabolic conditioning session rather than trying to shoehorn them in with specific P/P/H/S.

So the TGU becomes a sandbag Get-up done for time, the snatch becomes some variation of sandbag clean. They become movement and conditioning assistance work rather than trying to make them strength builders for anything but core musculature.

I used to use the compound grinds Bent Press and TGU as the anchors of my routine, but dropped them with most of my other overhead work. In my case I felt they were not challenging enough for my squat/hinge/lunge pattern and the upper body demand was more technique-driven than a general strength builder. They definitely promote some strength gains, but I felt I got better response with more targeted work and no real loss of "connectedness".

It didn't hurt I had no choice as my cervical disk symptoms took them off the table anyway, but all in all I believe I'm better off for it.

 

[pet']

Hello,

@North Coast Miller
I understand.

So after experiencing the different options - meaning two moves and multiple moves - you chose the 2nd option. However, doing so, it seems you progressively dropped the "grind part" of a training like S&S to something more "circuit" oriented (disclaimer: this is not a criticism at all as you are as strong as a bull ! )

Do you think progressed better with your "multiple" approach or with a more focused approach ?

From my experience:
I once played with a I. Portal's style of training. Basically, I did some conditioning, strength, and weighted mobility, without no focus at all. When I switched to a more focused routine, it seems like I could learn pattern extremely fast, but also I reached plateau faster.

My conclusion at the time was: the more moves I do, the stronger I can be, if I decide to switch to a pure strength routine.

Kind regards,

Pet'

 

[Im out]

2 handed swings and bent presses gave huge practical strength for me the first month.

I think it is "skill" based. The swing teaches to powerfully contract the glutes abs and hands. I think most "functional" strength comes from the ability to do so.

Bent presses increased my thoracic spine flexibility. Perhaps it contributed to increasing shoulder stability. I feel that bent presses really make my lat and shoulder connect.

So yeah. 2 move programs are great. Imho

I currently do Military Press & farmer walks. For 2 weeks. Then swap to Clean & Jerk and Farmer walks. Really triggered some hypertrophy there.

 

[North Coast Miller]

@pet'
I actually feel like I am more grind-oriented now, or maybe the same in a different way.
I had two preconditions for the structure:
- full body every session
- increased volume

To keep from burning out, I have for every push,pull,hinge,squat one heavy push or pull and one heavy hinge or squat. The ones that aren't heavy are more of a volume/dispersed effort exercise. I could theoretically swap ballistics in for these, or even some of the traditional grinds as long as total loading was not very high - which sort of defeat the purpose.

The next session, the alternating movement becomes the grind or accessory.

They are circuit like in execution only as a means of giving myself 2x the recovery but same overall session time by doing upper/lower back to back. This also lets me use one "heavy" lift paired with one accessory lift so mentally I'm not under constant attack, which I believe makes a huge difference in ability to stay mentally fresh. The upper/lower becomes the main factor why I would avoid big whole body overhead lifts even if I could perform them symptom free - they just don't fit well in this template.

That said I'm starting to run into issues with set-up for certain of the heavier lifts and have been doing them in more traditional order with 3 sets of X followed by 3 sets of Y instead of 3 sets of X/Y.

But the basic structure of grind/accessory stays the same.

I definitely feel like I'm making great progress currently, also feel as though this template allows for more flexibility without becoming chaotic than any template I've used. In fact I often feel like I'm not taking full advantage of this aspect, but there is no point in variety for variety's sake. Beyond a certain amount (based on individual) I do believe it dilutes strength/size response in exchange (maybe) for a bit of improved generic athleticism, AthleanX style.

 

[Kozushi]

I like to see it as not a question of how many lifts, or the two lifts in this case, but a question of low frequency and high frequency. Since our recovery capabilities are limited, we can't have many exercises and high frequency.

To me, high frequency is great for practising the skill part of the lift. It is great to thoroughly drill in a new lift with high frequency.

Big part of it is the weight used. In a new lift, the weights are relatively small, as one is learning the ropes. This permits higher frequency. The better one gets, the heavier the lifts get, and demand more rest.

Also, at some point, if we want to advance in a specific exercise, we have to learn the second part of the skill of lifting: lifting it when it gets really heavy, straining under a new rep max weight. That doesn't go well with high frequency either.

If you look at PTTP, there's a reason why Pavel says something along "buy a 300lbs set of plates and a barbell".

In other words you won't need too much more than 300lbs, if I'm understanding this properly. I'm happily deadlifting 340-370lbs as often as I like. It keeps me strong along the back chain.

 

[Alan Mackey]

In other words you won't need too much more than 300lbs, if I'm understanding this properly. I'm happily deadlifting 340-370lbs as often as I like. It keeps me strong along the back chain.

My point of diminishing returns seems to be pretty common:

- 150%-175% of bodyweight of stiff legged deadlifts for a bunch of reps (200% conventional deadlift).

- 150% of bodyweight of front squats for a bunch of reps (175% back squat).

- 125% of bodyweight of incline bench presses for a bunch of reps (150% flat bench press).

- 125% of bodyweight of bent over rows for a bunch of reps (150% Yates rows)

- 125%-150% of bodyweight of pull ups (factoring my own weight) for a bunch of reps.

- 125%-150% of bodyweight of dips (factoring my own weight) for a bunch of reps.

- Three Maffetone/NikoNiko running sessions of 90, 30 and 60 minutes.

Anything beyond that makes me extremely hungry, tired, angry and takes an enormous toll on my performance on the mat.

Keep in mind that, in my case, martial arts come first, second and third. So, really, anything else is pretty much unnecessary.

 

[wespom9]

Remember that two lifts doesn't mean only two lifts. It means you challenge the load/reps/sets/whatever on two lifts.
For the average gym-goer trainee, pushing only two lifts and cycling those two lifts every so often (while exploring other patterns in a lower intensity format) makes tons of sense.

 

[Steve Freides]

@Kozushi and everyone else, we did have a very similar discussion a few months ago:

Two-Lift Programs, a Conversation Starter

Currently on its 4th page.

-S-

 

[Pavel Macek]

Why not to do both? My program for last few months:

- S&S, 3-4 times/week - "just" goblet squats, swings and get-ups, heavy (currently mostly with the Beast)
- SFG I/II review, StrongFirst RESILIENT - lots of drills and variations, light (16-24 kg)

Works great - keeps me healthy, strong, and sane.