Erwan Le Corre

Erwan Le Corre talks Bodyweight, Part II

August 6, 2013 By Paul "Coach" Wade 10 Comments

Erwan Le Corre is the founder of MovNat.

Erwan Le Corre is an icon in the fitness world. He is considered by many to be the modern-day inheritor of the French tradition of physical education (and that’s quite a compliment when you consider that the French created parkour, free running, and effectively invented the modern military “assault course”). Erwan is the founder of MovNat—an astonishing physical education and fitness system based on comprehensive movement abilities. There are many coaches who try to imitate what he does, but for people who have seen him in action—or learned from him—there will only ever be one Erwan Le Corre!

Paul “Coach” Wade (author of Convict Conditioning) recently got the chance to ask Erwan his opinion on all things bodyweight, on behalf of the PCC community. In Part I of this interview, Erwan shared his thoughts on his heroes, the thinking behind MovNat, and bodyweight efficiency.

In this second and final part of this interview, Erwan opens up about his status as “World’s Fittest Man,” his favorite bodyweight exercises, and performing sit-ups over an eight-lane superhighway!

Paul Wade: Erwan, what are your favorite bodyweight movements?

Erwan Le Corre: Probably the “muscle-up” (this name is just SO weird, what does that mean exactly?!) simply because it is such an explosive movement that demands power but also coordination and balance. It is also adaptable to different environments, not just gymnastic rings, you can do it on a tree branch, a platform, a cable or rope etc…you’re looking up and the next second you’re looking down from an elevated place. To many people it is an inapproachable feat but when you’ve trained to make it almost effortless it’s such a bliss.

But that’s thinking “bodyweight movement” for strength. You know, holding a simple deep squat, and be super relaxed in that position and hold it for a long time, this is maybe the simplest, most enjoyable human movement and position of all. How many people out there can fully squat and hold it minutes in a perfectly relaxed state? There is more to a functional, competent body than just the impressive stuff that demands strength or power.

Al Kavadlo is a master of the muscle-up!

Paul Wade: Actually, “muscle-up” still seems like a strange name to me—in jail, these were called “sentry pull-ups,” which kinda makes a little more sense!

Do you use progressions in your teaching? (For example, beginning with easier push-ups on the knees, and moving to one-arm push-ups.) If so, could you give us an example?

Erwan Le Corre: Of course! Do you seriously think I’d take a completely deconditioned person (I call them “zoo-humans”) in the woods and say, have them walk in balance across a fallen tree trunk above a raging river? That would be criminal! Where should people start? They start not in natural, unpredictable and complex environments but in controlled, or at least managed environments that are predictable and safe. Or else you don’t have a coaching and physical education system, you have no system and you’re a jackass.

So I place a 2×4 wood beam on the ground and voila, here you go, you’ve got an environment with basic, entry level of complexity but that does challenge the beginner. It demands not just “balance” but “balancing skills” and you start practicing safely and progressively that way. Another example, before you train muscle-ups you train explosive pull-ups, before you train explosive pull-ups you train regular pull-ups, before you train regular pull-ups you train a variety of hangs and hanging traverses (the “side-swing traverse”) etc…

The priority is always the establishment of movement quality and efficiency through technical work. Then you gradually increase volume, intensity and complexity. Gray Cook puts it simply like this, “First move well, then move often.” In most cases motor-skills and conditioning will develop symbiotically. Depending on the movement, and/or the environment complexity, a physical action may demand more motor-control, or more strength and conditioning. I’ve addressed this earlier but I like to hammer it because it is so important. So the way you train sometimes involves both aspects, or may dissociate them. I’ve seen guys who could do tons of pull-ups but were unable to climb on top of the horizontal bar, I mean even after trying a few times. No amount of general conditioning can compensate for a lack of motor-control and technical skill. An hour later they could climb on top 6 different ways after learning the techniques.

I also have seen guys who could do tons of pull-ups unable to climb a horizontal bar even with technical instruction, do you know why? Because the bar was too thick, smooth and slippery for them and they couldn’t hang to it very long, let alone attempting to just pull themselves up, as they simply didn’t have the necessary grip strength to do so. You’re only as strong as your weakest link, and not amount of technical instruction will compensate for a lack specific conditioning or strength. And if you want to know, all these guys were highly trained CrossFitters. Take the test I mentioned above and see how it goes. If it doesn’t go as well as you thought it would, you have two options:

– re-assess the way you train (and maybe the reason you train), and modify your training regimen consequently. Maybe take a MovNat course or certification workshop.

– just forget about it and get back to your routine.

Paul Wade: Erwan, so far I am surprised by how much your thinking has in common with what I would call the “old school calisthenics” approach to training—you make a throwaway comment “you are only as strong as your weakest link,” but very few people will realize how important that understanding really is.

What’s your personal training regime like now, in brief? How many days per week?

Erwan Le Corre: I rely on my intuition. Not everyone is endowed with good intuition about themselves, their body and what’s the best way to train, I am fortunate that I’ve got a lot of experience and I know myself well, I have explored many training modalities and mastered a few. I’m also opportunistic. If I am somewhere with water I might swim, if I’m in a gym my training will be slightly different, or in nature, or at a martial art academy, depending on what a particular place has to offer. Personally, routines are not my cup of tea, but this being said routines and programs are very important for beginners, or when you have a very specific objective, like an event you want to participate in and you want to kick ass, or at least survive. Programming IS part of MovNat. It’s just that at the moment, my training doesn’t follow a particular structure. It’s free, intuitive and opportunistic, and I am mostly maintaining a decent general level of skills and conditioning. It can change tomorrow and I can decide to structure my training again, with particular goals. There’s no rule. I also want to say that it is very important to manage health for longevity.

Bodyweight-based training can be opportunistic—use whatever is around you to build your skills and abilities.

There’s only so much your body can take. Aging is real. You can’t prevent it, but you can decide how fast it goes, and avoid poor lifestyle choices that make you age even faster. Overtraining and under-recovery participate in aging faster, including uncomfortable symptoms such as joint pain etc…At almost 42 I am fortunate that I experience so far very limited symptoms like that, and it has to do with the way I train, in term of movement quality but also the way I treat my body overall. If I were to tell you I train X number of days a week, or X number of hours, or X number of sets and reps, does it actually mean something THAT objective? What is the quality of each movement performed? At what intensity? How prepared is my body? How do I recover? How do I treat myself? You know the latter questions only seem more subjective, but IMO they are actually more objective than any indication of numbers. The body doesn’t know anything about numbers. It only knows about movement patterns and sensations. How you FEEL should be your number one indicator or adequate training and practice. Feel amazing and don’t settle for less. You’ve got one life. At the end of your journey you will have forgotten all the details and numbers of your programs. But you will never forget how they made you feel.

Paul Wade: An amazing attitude—a lot of advanced guys think the same way.

Guys like Demenÿ and Hébert believed that an athlete should have mastery of their body in any environment—underwater, on rough terrain, even high above the ground. You are known for having performed some very unusual feats in this tradition. (For example, Erwan famously had a sit-up competition with Jean Haberey, while both men were hanging from a bridge over an eight-lane superhighway!) Could you tell us some of the thinking behind this please?

Erwan Le Corre: I think lots of people lack motivation to exercise because the purpose behind it is either unclear or too superficial. It can be unclear when you’re aiming at general aspects of “fitness” but without ever really assessing their transferability to real use. Because of this vagueness, you need to focus on something that is more tangible to you, like number of sets and reps. That may be rational in some way, but your mind needs something more substantial and real to be really excited. My mind at least, and that which of people who train with us. Superficial goals like a better looking body are legit, but they are not deeply satisfying.

So I’m not saying that having specific goals that can be measured is unimportant, it actually is very important for a number of reasons, such as assessing progress, the effectiveness of a program and motivation for instance. All I am saying is that when there’s a truly practical goal in mind, let’s say I’m going be able to carry somebody on my back a whole mile, or I am going to train to hold my breath 3 minutes straight so I could dive and rescue someone if needed, or I will become fast at running so I could escape a threatening situation swiftly…you see, these are practical goals. The indications of the one mile firefighter carry or the 3 minutes breath hold only matter because the objectives are practical performance, but if you remove that and just look at “one mile” or “3 minutes” then it doesn’t mean much anymore.

The practical goals go beyond the current perception of what is “functional.” You step on a bosu and do rotational lunges and that’s functional. Fair enough. But what actual practical physical action are you performing? If it is not clear in your mind what you’re trying to replicate, then you might get bored very soon because it won’t click in the back of your head. Practical goals give you, and your training, a deeper sense of purpose, that increases and maintains your drive to exercise hard and consistently. Because you want to acquire real-world physical competency, or to maintain it. You want to know what you are capable of, what you are made of. There’s a sense of reality and realism that is undeniable. You can walk the streets with the self-confidence of a person who knows they won’t be completely helpless to themselves and others if a difficult situation arises. Be useful, know you are. This is a great feeling!

Paul Wade: What, in your opinion, is the biggest barrier to fitness in the modern age?

Erwan Le Corre: Mentalities. There are gyms everywhere, parks everywhere, nature, cities. There are millions of fitness videos online for people who seek motivation, and books or trainers for those who seek knowledge or guidance. But the sad reality is that the average Joe and Jane are real “zoo-humans.” Why on Earth would they even want to move or exercise? Why such a physical punishment when you can be comfy at home and hide your physical suffering with pills and entertainment? Comfort is weakening, but people seem happy to be soft, they joke about it, every TV commercial makes people laugh about useless, helpless human beings who are completely disempowered. There’s a global culture of voluntary disempowerment. It is both a mass-condition and a mass-conditioning.

Bodyweight fitness is about more than strength and huge muscles. How is your running? Your climbing, your swimming?

Change this mentality and you will have legions of people who realize that exercising, especially moving in natural ways, is not a chore, not a punishment, not an option, but an expression of their most beautiful human nature. It belongs to all of us regardless of what makes us different. It has the potential to bring us all together. I want to awake in a world crowded with self-actualized, self-empowered individuals. Instead I wake up in a world crowded with dormant minds and lazy, soft bodies. The people who train physically and want to stay healthy and strong within a society that is sick and weak are modern heroes. They may not want to be part of an elite, but in some way they are. But my point is the opposite of trying to create elites. It is rather that everyone would be liberated and empowered. I have created MovNat with this vision in mind. It is quite the romantic, utopian and delusional vision, yet I am innocent enough to believe a change will take place. In my inner world, the change is taking place NOW.

Paul Wade: Wise words, my man. Are there any long-standing myths about strength and fitness training you would like to see vanish from the face of the earth?

Erwan Le Corre: Probably the idea that all there is to fitness and building a body is to grow bigger muscles. It is not really a myth but an overwhelmingly common perception. There is more to building a body than building muscles, and there is more to building a human being than building its body. To me fitness is the level of your energy at every level, physical, mental, emotional and spiritual. This is old school, in the sense that the ancient Greeks thought like that, all the main pioneers of physical education in Europe all thought like that. They didn’t seclude themselves to a purely physical realm. They wanted people to be whole. The mainstream, commercial fitness industry has absolutely no interest in you thinking like that. You don’t make much money on self-actualized people, that’s why.

Paul Wade: You have been called The World’s Fittest Man due to your wide-range of abilities. Any final tips from the World’s Fittest Man?

Erwan Le Corre: This is one of the myths you were mentioning earlier and that needs to be debunked. Christopher McDougall, NYT Best-seller author for “Born To Run” has written in a article he wrote for Men’s Health a few years ago that I may rank as one of the fittest men on the planet. Well, it all depends on what criteria. Few people, I admit, are able to follow me in my “world” and keep up with every type of physical challenge they could encounter, on any terrain. I’ve met many inspiring specialized athletes that all could kick my ass in their specific field of predilection. I’ve met guys who are generalists, like high level CrossFitters, but who forget that reality is specific and that specific training is required for every aspect of competency you want to be ready for. But don’t be mistaken. I couldn’t care less about competition and rankings. I’m not here to prove anything, but to embody my philosophy and spread the MovNat system. All I hope is that MovNat will produce many “fittest guy on Earth.” Most importantly, just train smart and hard and become YOUR fittest, this is what truly matters. The rest is just ego. Don’t neglect areas of your physical competence and potential and leave them under-developed. It’s really a loss for yourself. Become the fittest you can be in all areas of natural human movement is probably the best tip I can share.

MovNat students learn to use their bodies in different environments—not just in an air-conditioned gym!

Paul Wade: Erwan, you are a phenomenal example of natural fitness! Thanks for your time.

Erwan Le Corre: Compliment taken. You’re not bad yourself! Resiliency is a beautiful thing. I want to tell people this: whatever you thought or told yourself you were, whatever you are or were told you are, it doesn’t matter anymore the moment you decide to redefine and remodel yourself into the most self-actualized person you can. ON YOUR OWN TERMS. Because if you can’t empower yourself…who will?

***

Erwan Le Corre is the founder of MovNat. To find out more about his training approach, head on over to http://www.movnat.com/.

***

Paul “Coach” Wade is the author of five Convict Conditioning DVD/manual programs. Click here for more information about Paul Wade, and here for more information on Convict Conditioning DVD’s and books available for purchase from the publisher.

Erwan Le Corre talks Bodyweight – Part I

July 30, 2013 By Paul "Coach" Wade 14 Comments

Erwin_pic5 — **Erwan Le Corre is the founder of MovNat.**

Erwan Le Corre is an icon in modern fitness. Men’s Health once declared that he ranked amongst the fittest men in the world. Whatever your personal definition of “fitness”, Erwan undeniably has an amazing pedigree; in fact he is considered by many researchers to be the modern-day inheritor of the French Physical Education tradition.

Erwan spent his childhood exploring the countryside and training in the martial arts. He went on to become the most famous protégé of Jean Haberey, the notorious French stuntman and athlete. Haberey’s students met at night, and climbed bridges, ran and jumped across the urban skyline, and fought hand-to-hand in sewers. Haberey‘s underground society—dubbed Combat Vital—is widely considered to be an important forerunner of the modern bodyweight arts parkour and free running.

After seven years, Erwan left Combat Vital, and plunged into an intense period of in-depth research into traditional training methods. The result of these years of study and experiment was MovNat, Erwan’s physical education and fitness system which promotes authentic, natural movement through activities such as running, crawling, climbing and swimming.

Paul “Coach” Wade (author of Convict Conditioning) recently got the chance to ask Erwan his opinion on all things bodyweight, on behalf of the PCC community. The two-part interview that follows presents a unique insight into Erwan’s radical—and powerful—training philosophy. Erwan goes in-depth and pulls no punches, telling us exactly what is right with modern training—and also what’s very, very wrong.

If you are interested in bodyweight strength or movement training, you do not want to miss this!

Paul Wade: Erwan, thanks for agreeing to answer a few questions. Many people see you as the modern inheritor of a long tradition of “natural” physical culture.

Who is your all-time hero in physical culture, and why?

Erwan Le Corre: Paul thanks for inviting me, it’s appreciated.

First off I would like to dissociate Physical Culture on the one hand and Physical Education on the other. Historically there is some overlap between the two, but physical culture was mainly orientated towards feats of strength and the development of sculptural physiques. The term “culturist” comes from it, and is the forerunner of modern bodybuilding. Think Eugen Sandow or P.H. Clias for instance, the “Arnolds” of their time. I’m not saying they were not physical educators in some way, but in this regard there is, in my opinion, more substance to find when looking at the history of Physical Education.

Physical educators of the past had at heart the complete physical development of young people and the general population. So their aim was not just strength or sculptural physiques as in Physical Culture, but a more harmonious, general, and practical development of the body and mind. The type of “gymnastics” and “calisthenics” they promoted had not so much to do with a modern approach to gymnastics and calisthenics, in the sense that a lot of the training was based on practical skills. Movement skills practice such as jumping, running, climbing, throwing, carrying etc…were not done just for aesthetics, and not just for general physical conditioning through bodyweight exercise. The approach was way more practical, with exercises strongly resembling real-world physical actions and apparatus mimicking the environmental and situational demands of the real-world (there was also often a strong correlation with military needs and nationalistic ideas).

So of course my personal, all-time hero is the famous French physical education pioneer Georges Hebert. The reason is that he did emphasize utilitarian training as well as contact with nature like I do. He’s my big inspiration, though not the only one. But the history of physical education doesn’t start or end with him. There were wonderful other pioneers before him (who did strongly inspire Hebert, such as Amoros or Jahn), and there are quite competent innovators that came after him too. Sorry for the discourse in Physical Education history in Europe, I hope more people start to understand that “functional fitness” didn’t start with kettlebells or modern calisthenics. There’s a LONG line of people before us and a long history of methods, systems and programs. There’s nothing new under the sun!

Erwin_pic1 — A rare physique shot of Georges Herbert (1875-1957). Herbert developed bodyweight assault courses for the military which were later dubbed ‘parcours du combattan’ —the path/course of the warrior.

Paul Wade: There’s no doubt about it—you’re right, there’s nothing new in physical training. Nothing good, anyway! Let’s look a little at how you go about “Physical Education”. A lot of MovNat seems to be based around moving the body in different ways. “Body competency” seems to be a huge part of what you and MovNat are about. Could you tell us a little about your philosophy of bodyweight training?

Erwan Le Corre: Well, prepare for a lengthy answer! MovNat is based around moving the human body in all the ways that are natural to it. To understand what “natural” entails from our perspective, you want to imagine a wild human animal, maybe one of our common ancestors, or one of the remaining ancestral hunter-gatherers, moving through natural environments for survival. Having to seize opportunities while avoiding threats. Unless they’re resting, playing or dancing, the movements they will have to perform are all PRACTICAL; they aim at doing something immediately useful in a variety of situations of the real life. Secondly they are ADAPTABLE, they must adapt to the physical environment where you are.

This simple observation has a lot to do with the way we approach physical training in MovNat. First off we focus on the practicality of the movements we train. For instance performing a “human flag” does have value from a bodyweight strength standpoint, but not so much from a practical standpoint; therefore it may be trained occasionally as part of your overall physical experience and background. Comparatively, significantly more attention and energy will be dedicated to actually practical climbing techniques, for instance a “tuck pop-up”, or climbing strength and conditioning movements, for instance the “forearm pull-up” which is the discrete component of the “tuck pop-up” that requires more power.

Erwin_pic2 — **There’s more than one way to pull yourself up—if you have the strength. How many methods have you explored?**

Environmental adaptability is the second main pillar of our philosophy. If you train a given jumping technique, say a broad jump, you are not just considering the strength gain and other physiological adaptations by training this movement at a greater volume or intensity. You are also looking at finely tuning your motor-control skills by increasing environmental complexity. Greater environmental complexity means a physical environment that becomes progressively more challenging. This can be starting first by jumping at ground level on a flat floor, then landing on a flat but restricted surface (still at ground level), then jumping from and/or landing on a small, slightly elevated surface, and ultimately performing a similar jumping technique but at a height, landing on a narrow, uneven surface, and potentially involving a danger in case of a fall.

That’s an example of progression in (environmental) complexity, without necessarily an increase in volume or intensity. The movement pattern remains the same, the volume and intensity too, but you must finely tune your motor-control if you want to be both effective (doing it successfully) and efficient (with minimal energy expenditure, in the shortest time, in a mentally relaxed state etc…). You see there is more to greater performance than just volume and intensity. When you add to the mix the necessity to increase movement adaptability, you open a whole new world of possibilities and challenges. It can be intimidating to those who prefer not challenging their comfort zone too much, but it is going to thrill those who want optimum preparedness for the real world. No extra amount of general conditioning will ever compensate for a lack of motor-skills and adaptability.

Erwin_pic3 — **“No extra amount of general conditioning will ever compensate for a lack of motor-skills and adaptability.” –Erwan Le Corre**

So yes, physical competency to us is movement competence and to develop it you need motor-skills, strength and other aspects of conditioning. This being said, we are not restricted to bodyweight. To us bodyweight just means locomotive skills such as running, jumping, crawling, balancing, climbing etc…i.e., moving your body through various environments. Sometimes, you need to move both your body and an external object, and your bodyweight movement becomes a manipulative action against greater resistance if for instance you’re lifting and carrying something heavy, and this is practical and adaptable training too.

I like to tell people, especially the big dudes who are mostly focused on strength and lifting heavy, that before they moving “heavy s**t”, they must be able to move the “heavy s**t” that they are. They usually get it because the heavier you get in bodyweight, the more difficult it can become to move your body with complex movements and through complex environments. They know it and can feel it inside, so it is hard to argue with something that just makes sense.

So physical competency starts with being to move your own body skillfully before anything else. My good friend Gray Cook says, “Don’t add strength to dysfunction” and he is so damn right. This simple common-sense is probably what led him to create the CK-FMS, so that kettlebell practitioners who primarily focus on the external load, manipulative side of exercise, would rediscover fundamental human movements and positions. After fixing basic dysfunctions they can better put their strength to use, or develop even more strength once they got rid of physical limitations, such as lacking full range of mobility. Move your body skillfully first, then skillfully move stuff around, not the other way around.

Paul Wade: I am in agreement with this, completely. It’s ridiculous how many people I see trying to squat with loaded barbells when they can’t even squat properly with their own bodyweight. A lot of the older generations of lifters and bodybuilders (pre-1960s) all did bodyweight work before, and alongside their weighted training to keep these essential skills at a high level.

Your attitude to “practical” movements is really interesting. These days, people are beginning to realize that calisthenics is about more than formal exercises like push-ups and sit-ups; bodyweight training can encompass a massive range of activities including “natural” exercises like crawling, balancing, jumping, and so on. I tend to think that both these types of bodyweight work—the formal/systematic, and the free/natural—work really well side-by-side in a training program.

What kind of role do more formal, traditional exercises (e.g., pull-ups, push-ups, bodyweight squats) have in your method?

Erwan Le Corre: People start rediscovering movement as whole, and there’s a slow shift of perception and paradigm towards a more movement-based approach to fitness. So far movements, usually basic, segmental and mechanistic movements have been used for the purpose of muscle building, strength or conditioning. With MovNat the approach is different, as the purpose of movement is movement itself, or movement competency if you prefer.

Muscles and joints are the tools, much less a finality. This being said, to perform practical movements effectively you do need a functional body that is also conditioned and strong. You will need full range of mobility, stability and strength, power, coordination, endurance, spatial awareness (proprioception and exteroception), and so on.

To answer your question more specifically, most formal strength and conditioning drills such as pull-ups have their place in our method all simply because they ARE natural movements too. Let me explain, what exactly is a pull-up? From a classic strength and conditioning standpoint it is an upper body strength conditioning drill. From a MovNat standpoint, it is a climbing movement. If you hang for instance to a horizontal tree branch and that you pull your body up, the end-goal is most likely that you intend to actually climb on top, right? You see, the movement itself hasn’t changed, but the intention and purpose have, as well as your perception of the drill. It is replacing movement in its original practical context. The strengthening value of the pull-up drill is the same, and we will practice it to develop upper body strength in the trunk, arms, shoulders, abs, forearms etc…so we can condition for more complex climbing techniques. Where our approach will differ is that we will try perform various practical ways to pull-up, for instance hanging from a much thicker surface or a flat surface, pulling hanging from your forearms (we call it “forearm pull-up”) etc…so we can adapt to specific environmental demands with effectiveness and efficiency. This is why for instance a “chin-up” (supinated grip) has much less value to us than a “pull-up” (pronated grip) chin to the bar or higher. Why? Because if you think climbing a horizontal surface and pull your body up chin to the bar, what do you do next? That’s right, you’re forced to bring each arm behind and over the bar so you can keep climbing. It is a waste of time and energy, it is inefficient.

Erwin_pic4 — **Calisthenics strength and bodyweight movement skills can work together well. PCC Lead Instructor Al Kavadlo is famous for his ability on the bar, but trees don’t pose a problem for him either!**

You see, just being good at pull-ups won’t necessarily translate to effectiveness or efficiency in every climbing movement or surface. It is important and even essential, but not sufficient at all. The reason is that both motor-skill and conditioning need specific training and adaptation. Think SAID principle, i.e., Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand. This is why we don’t believe in just training in a (usually) short selection of general conditioning drills, because the “reality of reality” is that more specific demands can be placed upon you and your body won’t respond effectively and/or efficiently unless it has been trained to perform specifically. To us, “GPP” (general physical preparedness) programs do work, but work only to an extent. Contrary to a common belief, our observation is that they do not prepare you for “anything”, and people with a GPP training background who come train with us realize this. Within seconds or minutes. Again, most people don’t just lack techniques and motor-control, and MovNat is not just that (a set of techniques), they also lack specific conditioning and MovNat also addresses specific conditioning (not specialized conditioning).

I hope it all makes sense! If people in your audience want to understand this approach from an experiential standpoint, I invite them to find a bar that is about 4 inches thick (such as these metal structures for swings in kid’s playgrounds) and perform these 2 tests:

-max reps (pronated grip) pull-ups (compare to max reps with regular pull-up bar). If the number is significantly lower than what you can normally do, you lack grip strength. Isn’t it part of strength conditioning?

-starting from a full dead-hang (no motion at all), climb on top of the bar until you can straddle on top of it. You can’t jump off the ground, you can’t pull on something else than the bar itself, you can’t push off anything with your feet (like the vertical poles on the side). How many ways can you climb on top? How many ways do you know, and how many ways can you actually perform? For each technique you’ve used, how easy and efficient was it? If you couldn’t climb on top once, maybe you lack technique and motor-control, maybe you lack specific strength and conditioning, or maybe a combination of both. Same answer if you could only succeed climbing on top using one particular movement. You should be able to use 3 different ways at least, and ideally all 6 ways we teach in MovNat.

Next week we’ll post part II of this interview, where Erwan talks about his approach to training progressions, motor skills, training longevity, and debunks longstanding training myths—plus much more. Not to be missed!

***

Erwan Le Corre is the founder of MovNat. To find out more about his training approach, head on over to http://www.movnat.com/.

***