Kieser Training - Strength Training, from Switzerland?!

[Fortis_in_Arduis]

I was flipping through (London) TimeOut magazine, and came across the Kieser Training gym just South of where I live. It was listed as one of Londons '50 best gyms'.

So, I went along to see them, and explained that I weight training has given me sciatica in the past. The instructor knew exactly what had caused it, and what had happened to me.

I was refreshed by their no-nonsense approach to weight training, which goes against a lot that I have been told so far but seems to go very much with what my instinct tells me.

I will list them here:

1. Weight train only one or two times a week. More than this and you begin to lose your strength (but perhaps gaining other benefits?), as many athletes apparently do when they train before they recover.
   
2. Only one set per exercise, done to exhaustion, after 9-12 reps. Usually there have been multiple sets for me. Not sure what the theory is here, but I will willing to run with it. Most of the guys in the gym seemed quite strong including the older ladies.
   
3. Same set of exercises each time you train; until you are given new exercises.

The gym has no sauna, no music, no whirlpool, no running machines is kitted out in a very VERY functional way. I was very impressed. I have never seen anything so simple and functional before.

Finally I find a gym which is as anal as I am. :p

So, I am going to continue and see how I go? Has anyone else heard anything good of Werner Kieser and his methods?

Weblink:

http://www.kieser-training.com/index_uk.html

[Cuchulain]

1. Weight train only one or two times a week. More than this and you begin to lose your strength (but perhaps gaining other benefits?), as many athletes apparently do when they train before they recover.
   
2. Only one set per exercise, done to exhaustion, after 9-12 reps. Usually there have been multiple sets for me. Not sure what the theory is here, but I will willing to run with it. Most of the guys in the gym seemed quite strong including the older ladies.
   
3. Same set of exercises each time you train; until you are given new exercises.

http://www.kieser-training.com/index_uk.html

Thats not far removed from what 90% of personal trainers anywhere would do with a new client. I took a peek at the website and noticed that they use all machines which is pretty much a deal breaker if you ask me. If your client progresses to a desirable level of fitness, as a competent trainer, you ought to be prescribing mostly closed chain freeweight and bodyweight movements as resistance exercise. The reason they don't have all of those luxurious amenities is probably because their business model is create revenue from personal training sessions more so than club memberships? Just a guess.

[Leonhardt]

I am not familiar with Kieser, I am only commenting on the methods.

1. Weight train only one or two times a week. More than this and you begin to lose your strength (but perhaps gaining other benefits?), as many athletes apparently do when they train before they recover.
2. Only one set per exercise, done to exhaustion, after 9-12 reps. Usually there have been multiple sets for me. Not sure what the theory is here, but I will willing to run with it. Most of the guys in the gym seemed quite strong including the older ladies.
3. Same set of exercises each time you train; until you are given new exercises.

I think training only twice per week for strength can work. A third session could be a burnout for your targeted areas.
After warm ups, it is difficult to burn out a muscle in only one set unless you are perfectly in the zone and focused, but it can be done. For me, it usually takes two sets to burn out a muscle sufficiently.
Doing the same sets of exercises is OK. Even changing the workout order, or timing of repetitions can be enough variation.

The machines are safer for your back and joints. It requires strong attention to form for the free weights.

For the legs I usually prefer squats and lunges. However, if this workout only takes half an hour, then I see nothing wrong with it. The deal maker or breaker for me would be how well it strengthens the torso/back. If it works better than conventional free weight methods, then I would be all for it.

[Cuchulain]

I am not familiar with Kieser, I am only commenting on the methods.



1) I think training only twice per week for strength can work. A third session could be a burnout for your targeted areas.
After warm ups, it is difficult to burn out a muscle in only one set unless you are perfectly in the zone and focused, but it can be done. For me, it usually takes two sets to burn out a muscle sufficiently.
Doing the same sets of exercises is OK. Even changing the workout order, or timing of repetitions can be enough variation.

2) The machines are safer for your back and joints. It requires strong attention to form for the free weights.

3) For the legs I usually prefer squats and lunges. However, if this workout only takes half an hour, then I see nothing wrong with it. The deal maker or breaker for me would be how well it strengthens the torso/back. If it works better than conventional free weight methods, then I would be all for it.

1) Ideal training volume and frequency vary between individuals in terms of genetics, other physical activities/overall stress in trainees, training experience etc. Most importantly, it depends on what your goals are. Training for muscular endurance requires less sets than does training for absolute strength, but can be done more frequently, as it takes the body's energy systems less time to fully recover than it takes the nervous system. That said, most people would use a scheme pretty similar to what this program calls for. The U.S. Surgeon general recommends a minimum of 8-10 compound movements covering all major muscle groups, 1-2 sets, 8-12 reps of each.

2) The machines which control ones range of motion are terrible for your joints, because train large muscle groups more effectively than they train smaller stabilizing muscles or the proprioreception of the nervous system (basically your body kinesthetic sense) which makes you vulnerable to injury. They also force your limbs through artificial ranges of motion rather than letting your body move naturally. The free motion type cable machines are better though. I still would want to see more free weight than free motion work with a trainee who was in good shape though.

3) squats lunges and core work should be the bread and butter of any healthy persons resistance work. good call.

[Fortis_in_Arduis]

Thanks for all the replies.

More on the Kieser people:

They also stress the importance of moving slowly, following '4-2-4'; four seconds or more on the action, then hold for two seconds, and then release slowly taking at least four seconds. Does that sound sensible?

I do not think that they do any work with free weights, or with squats or lunges. Not 100% sure about this though... I think that this might be due to their specialization in dealing with injuries, like mine :

They do not promote sit-ups either, as far as I can see; there is yet another machine for that, along with a contraption for the back. Everything is set to ones own body and there is no room for anything to come out of line and risk injury. I like it.

Any further comments? I am to sign up tomorrow!!

[Leonhardt]

They also stress the importance of moving slowly, following '4-2-4'; four seconds or more on the action, then hold for two seconds, and then release slowly taking at least four seconds. Does that sound sensible?

I do not think that they do any work with free weights, or with squats or lunges. Not 100% sure about this though... I think that this might be due to their specialization in dealing with injuries, like mine

They do not promote sit-ups either, as far as I can see; there is yet another machine for that, along with a contraption for the back. Everything is set to ones own body and there is no room for anything to come out of line and risk injury. I like it.

I did not get good results lifting until I started to use the slow timing that you mention above, with the peak contraction. Sometimes I forget that the slow extension is important also, good reminder. I read about them in bodybuilding magazines and books, such as Muscle and Fitness. Supplementing with green multivitamins such as Detoxigreen has helped as well.
I have seen many free weight lifters with torn shoulders, sore elbows, and sometimes knees or backs. Cuchulain has a good point about the machine stabilizer muscle imbalances also. For example, weak rotator cuff muscles (under the bigger shoulder muscles), along with poor form are probably leading causes of the torn shoulder cartilage in many bench pressers. Even lunges can lead to sore knees if not done properly.

IMO all it takes is a steel chair to learn how to squat properly. However, it is still good to read up on the form.

My best abdominal results have been with twisting elbow to knee crunches with the other leg extended while laying on the back. People just have to remember not to pull on their head. However, machines can add more resistance for a thicker abdominal wall.

I would have no problem with machines once or twice per week. For my own situation, I would do some extra exercises at home for my own goals.

[Cythraul]

I'm extremely skeptical of this. It seems to me like they're trying to appeal to people with time-constraints and other outside pressures who would like to believe they can achieve huge successes with minimal time and effort. Some thoughts:

- Training 1-2 times per week is NOT the most efficient frequency. It is true that you must never train a muscle again before it has recovered from the previous session, but with proper nutrition and planning, this can be as little as 3-4 days. And as most weight-lifters know, if you train the right muscle groups in the right order, you can easily do 4 sessions in a week without over-training.

- One set per exercise? Again, they're under the impression that more than one set equates to over-training. I would guess that their basis for this is the phenomena of catabolism, which can be explained in this way: At a certain point during your training session, your body's energy useage is liable to becoming catabolic. This is when your body begins to break down muscle protein to fuel your exertion. When requiring energy, the body's preference is protein (because it is easier to burn than fat, and it would prefer to store fat - an evolutional function no doubt), so if protein has not been consumed recently, the body will simply break down muscle as an alternative. So yes, in a sense they're correct that it's possible to actually lose strength by training too long. What they neglect to mention is that with the proper nutrition - i.e. the consumption of some protein every 3 or so hours, immediately following a workout particularly, the catabolic state can be avoided, or at least lessened. Besides, all those missed weights sets raise the heart rate and burn some fat, so by doing less of them, you're just going to have to make up for it with pure cardio (treadmill, cross-trainer etc) which is even more likely to put your body in a catabolic state - lessening strength.

- Same set of exercises each session? This point I'm most mistrustful of. The body grows accustomed to exercises, routines and weight quantities. Your body/muscles will not grow when you are comfortable with an exercise. The only way to force your body to grow and change is to shock it! That means either upping the weight when ready, switching exercises every few weeks, or switching the order in which you perform them.

- Machines are NOT the way to become strong. As previously mentioned, machines force the muscles into fixed movements which work the major muscles but make the stabiliser muscles redundant. This means that while your chest (for example) might be growing more muscular, it will be USELESS in any practical situation where the push movement is not on a pre-determined trajectory like it is when using a machine. Large major muscles are pointless without conditioned stabiliser muscles. Free-weights and cables are the only ways to ensure a balanced development.

If the members of this gym have been successful, I'd suggest it's more to do with continued training and morale (by not having the 'chore' factor of other gym plans which often results in low enthusiasm) than because these 'lazyman' techniques are superior. I'll stick with my 4-times-weekly, 3-sets-per-exercise plan. It's served me well for years.

[Cythraul]

I did not get good results lifting until I started to use the slow timing that you mention above, with the peak contraction.

Slow movements and fast movements have different, but equally important benefits. When training for size and strength, slow extensions are beneficial, when training for power and fitness, fast movements are beneficial. I do both depending on my current goals.

I have seen many free weight lifters with torn shoulders, sore elbows, and sometimes knees or backs.

That's simply because of bad form and rushed development (jumping straight to weights beyond their capability), not because free weight exercises are naturally detrimental. With proper form and sensible judgement, free weight movements are undoubtedly essential. It's all about training for practical situations. Machine chest-presses aren't going to help you push a wardrobe into place for example.

[Jäger]

Training for muscular endurance requires less sets than does training for absolute strength, but can be done more frequently, as it takes the body's energy systems less time to fully recover than it takes the nervous system.

The most effective strength gain, is if you use your muscle at 100% for 1 second.
One repetition, one set is enough to built up your strength, technically.

Anyways, I am not fond of Kieser, it is just another chain of fitness studios that actually know, that effective training doesn't really need them.
However, it might work for you anyways.

The best book so far on this subject I have encountered, is this: http://www.amazon.com/Starting-Stren.../dp/0976805421

After that you will know anything you need, and you will be surprised how few exercises are actually needed to become stronger, and generally more trained.

[Leonhardt]

Slow movements and fast movements have different, but equally important benefits. When training for size and strength, slow extensions are beneficial, when training for power and fitness, fast movements are beneficial. I do both depending on my current goals.

I remember reading that even the bodybuilders do some Olympic movements so that they develop both types of muscle fibers.

That's simply because of bad form and rushed development (jumping straight to weights beyond their capability), not because free weight exercises are naturally detrimental. With proper form and sensible judgement, free weight movements are undoubtedly essential. It's all about training for practical situations. Machine chest-presses aren't going to help you push a wardrobe into place for example.

One of my favorite articles from Muscle and Fitness was by a doctor whose opinion was that the joints and tendons are not designed to go beyond 90 degrees (right angle). Beyond that they get shearing forces. Good form and sensible weight amounts should avoid most injuries, I agree.