Movement Complexity vs Linear Progression: The Final Showdown

Generally, the health and fitness world is polarized into two camps. Those who advocate the use of linear programming (meaning few of the same exercises repeated over and over with increasing intensity) and those who use variation (different exercises each time with a focus on movement teaching and exploration). Regardless of who uses each paradigm, they usually have quite vehement arguments for their point of view. The field is, generally skewed toward linear programming, with advocates of such an approach lambasting any opposers who tout a varied routine. This article is my attempt to break each of these philosophies down, with the pros and cons of each, and how I would use them.

 Linear Progression

 Examples: Powerlifting, bodybuilding, or fixed met-con routines for time.
Simple isn't always bad
Pros:
  • It's measurable. Theres the old adage "what gets measured gets managed", and its mostly true. Effective progress comes from tracking and measuring.
  • Fewer, simpler exercises make it easier to perfect the movements (note: easier, not "easy")
  • Usually, the more general an exercise, the greater the transfer to sports and activities of daily living and linear programs tend to use general exercise (eg: barbell back squat vs twisting dragon squat)

 Cons: 
  • A focus on quantity often leads to a loss of quality. In an effort to get their numbers up or increase their "Fran" time, trainees may sacrifice form or technique in order to reach that goal. Unless you are competing in powerlifitng, having a big squat is not a goal unto itself. Training is in order to prepare you for other things in life and should stimulate an adaptation in your body, whether you lift 10 kilos or 100.
  • Can be boring and difficult for some trainees to stick to. Take your average, unmotivated client. For a trainer, getting them to stick to a 5x5 routine for 5 years may be difficult and you might wind up losing that client to someone who provides more variety and fun.

 Exercise Variation

Examples: Animal/primal movement classes, HIIT circuits with ever changing workouts
Like these dudes
Pros:
  • Higher movement complexity activates the motor cortex of the brain and can be a welcome stimulus for the average desk-jockey living in a 2-dimensional world.
  • Routines that are fun and exiting for some clients which could lead to greater client retention for trainers.
  • More complex movements can help screen and diagnose dysfunction as it's harder for the trainee to mask biomechanical weaknesses.
  • Can potentially improve body awareness more than linear training.
  • Helps maintain a high degree of mobility as the body is always training in multiple planes of movement (for example, you can have a big squat but still struggle to get up and down from the floor effortlessly)

 Cons:
  • Constant variation is an inefficient way to increase quantitative loading.
  • For trainees with extensive motor control and mobility issues, programs emphasizing complex movements might be too difficult to perform.
  • Might be too "random" for some trainees to enjoy.

 Puttin' it all together

 Given the myriad of pros and cons for each, the rational approach is (as always) somewhere in the middle. The answer as to which is best is (un-sexily)... it depends.. Some people benefit from linear programming and repetition (rehab patients, and athletes spring to mind), whereas some benefit from variety (desk jockeys, advanced recreational trainees, and unmotivated trainees).

 The rational apporach and one we use at the Oslo Kettlebell Gym, is to combine the two. Some days with linear, measured programming, and other days with complex movement exploration and variety. In putting together cycles and programs, it's useful to understand this relationship:

If it's in graph form, you know its legit

 I define intensity in this graph as how much a trainee can quantitatively lift (eg: weight on a barbell). Intensity can also be qualitative, as in how hard a trainee can contract her muscles, but this is, in effect, subjective. Quantitative measurement of muscle contraction is indeed possible using electromyographic analysis, but is cumbersome and impractical for most people unless they need it for rehab or sports teams that can afford to implement it.

 When programming for simple vs complex exercise, I try to imagine an inverse relationship between intensity and complexity. The more complex a movement, the lower the intensity or loading. The simpler a movement, the higher the loading. Duh right? In case this wasn't clear enough I put an "optimal relationship" label on the line so now you know its true because the internet told you so. The dotted line represents a suboptimal relationship between the two, where either loading/intensity, or complexity can be maximized.

 Gimme a program already!

 Here are a few examples of programming using the different approaches.

 Low complextiy, high intensity:

 Workout A
5x3 Barbell Front Squats
3x10 Weighted chinups

 Workout B
5x5 Barbell Deadlifts
3x5 Barbell Press

 Perform these workouts three times a week, alternating workout each time. Increase loading incrementally each workout if you complete the required reps. Usually done in 4-12 week cycles.

 High complexity, low intenstiy:

 Freeflow primal movement class, layering complex movments into a flow. An example would be:

 Front crawl, underswitch to crab walk, scorpion kick to front kick, swoop kick, hindu pushup, iranian crescent moon pushup.

 Medium complexity, medium intensity:

 Many advanced kettlebell exercises fall into this category and could include:

 Windmill
Turkish Get Up
Rotational swing
Snatch
Overhead lunge

 You could certainly perform a VERY heavy turkish get up, but you'll always be able to deadlift more, meaning the relative intensity for that particluar trainee in the TGU would still be lower than her deadlift.

 Programming Faults

 For those not graph-savvy, the space between "optimal relationship" and "sub-optimal" relationship" can be attributed to programming faults, ie. the trainer didn't optimally assess the possible balance of movements and intensity. There is slack in this relationship and there is room for optimalization.

 In practice, this is often very hard to measure, and is often only visible after a given workout, but good trainers and therapists should be able to, over time, gauge what her client or class needs and adjust accordingly. The lesson here for coaches is to always be aware of ways to optimize this relationship and take a good, hard look at your programming.

 The lesson for my workout peeps is to simply be aware of the relationship between complexity and intensity and don't do stupid things like trying to do complex movements at high intensity (eg: high rep heavy barbell snatches.. cough.. crossfit.. cough)

 The Bottom Line

 Although being sensational and having an adamant viewpoint is useful for marketing purposes and creating hype, the truth about training is really much more multifaceted. Experts forcing their opinion on the world do this partially to leverage their expertise and sell their product, which is their knowledge and experience. Oh, your're a proponent of barbell training and you also happen to sell barbells and books on barbell training as well? How convenient! Joe Average, unenlightened in the ways of fitness, often seeks a guru or extreme coach of sorts offering a one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter apporach as though it were the only thing. Such is the extremist mindset of human nature. 
Everyone must do squats and only squats forever!!!

 People like extremes, and let's face it, having a balanced outlook isn't sexy enough for most. But I propose a new model, lets try and look at things with an open mind. After all, there's more than one way to skin a cat.