Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum - View Single Post

EricT · 11-08-2008, 03:03 PM

Here I go with the blah, blah, blah some more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkhorse in Working Class Hero

How many times have you heard:

..Not optimal
..Not popular
..Where's the (pick popular compound exercise)
..That's not what "So and so does"

While many times that's exactly what some trainees need to hear, there's a lot that people just don't take into account. So those words get replaced with "availability" and "what I can, when I can".

1. Not optimal :This brings to mind a PM conversation where I said to DH:

One of my problems is the the concept of what is necessary and sound versus what is "optimal". So many people base stuff on these abstract concepts like "optimal"...I know I used to. The problem is optimal is entirely subjective because it is also based on an individuals viewpoint of what is ACCEPTABLE. Like injuries will happen so fuck it and get injured while training optimally!

But what is necessary and sound that is something different. That requires you to be objective...to step back a bit and not take training so personally.

And:

Here's my deal. Sometimes I think it may be best to talk about 'getting BETTER' rather than 'getting STRONGER'. It all comes down to the same thing in the end but the mindset is completely different.

2. Not popular

In think I’ve already expressed some of my views on that in this thread. I think the end of the “Asking Advice” thread about “authority figures” is relevant here:

http://www.bodybuilding.net/personal-journals/asking-advice-11980.html#post69287

A lot of “popular” things come to mind right now. Crossfit for example.

I’m beating a

yet again but the concept of the pendulum is always at work. Even with 5x5 training we see something relatively old being brought around again. And whether it’s completely new things or old concepts there can always be that over-reaction. Always be aware of the danger of over-reaction AND of under-reaction. The inevitable backlash when thing become overused. Don’t let the over-valuing of something cause you to dismiss it but CERTAINLY don’t let the undue excitement over something cause you to forget everything you know.

3. Where’s the (pick popular compound exercise)

I blame us all for this. This has to stop. I also blame Rippetoe a great deal with his there is only a handful of usefull exercises CRAP. Well…then why is he in bed with Crossfit, huh? Hmmm……money talks, bullshit walks.

If I here about an exercise being “the KING” one more time…I swear! Somebody comes on and says they can’t squat so everybody just say’s, oh, you just probably need to squat deeper. Or this or that. Squatting will cure you knees. But for whatever reason people really feel a need to convince others to do certain things because they are “optimal” (see # 1). And of course that is EXACTLY what someone wants to hear. You can get strong without ANY one particular exercise. And it is OK to work on your problems and injuries before you get back to them. You CAN get a training effect without back squatting or anything that happens to be troubling you.

Someone says that dipping hurts they’re AC joint and there is always the yahoo that wants to say (dipping is the KING of upper body movements). Well hey, I rate pull-ups over that but I’m not going to convince someone with a bad elbow injury how they should be doing pull-ups right now. Or a shoulder injury or whatever.

How many times do we get someone who has equipment limitations or time limitations and we tell them they can’t do this or that. They need to join a gym. Blah, blah, blah. Tell them what they can do. If you don’t KNOW what they can do then maybe your are not so smart as you think you are.

4. That’s not what so and so does..

So and so is a “case study”. I’m stealing from Mike Robertson’s blog but I will post the link and urge everyone to check out his site.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Robertson

http://www.robertsontrainingsystems.com/index.html]

N=1 (A)
I’m always leery of this. Always.

What am I talking about exactly? I’m talking about trainees and coaches whose experience and frame of reference is limited to one person. Whether that one person is them, one client, etc. is irrelevant.

You’ll quite often hear people say, “I did X with Y client and it worked great.” Or, “I do A and got B.” The inherent problem is this – would you get that same result with another person? With multiple people? With an entire training group?

What I’m getting at here is using the “I do this because so and so says so” pisses me off. Could that person be correct? Sure. For example, I’d accept just about anything that Stuart McGill has to say about low back care, simply because he has a huge frame of reference. He’s worked with an infinite amount of people, and thus has a huge frame of reference.

Contrast this with Johnny Trainer or Internet Warrior, who used a 6-day split routine (with two arm days) to add an inch to his guns. His N=1; it worked for him, but it may not work for everyone else. His frame of reference is quite small.

Whenever you try to take in and assimilate new information, you need to think about the author’s level of credibility, his experience, and the number of people he’s trained to draw his conclusions from. Critical thinking is imperative if you really want to understand any topic.

N=1 (B)

N=1 doesn’t cut it any more. The key is consistent results with a large number of patients, clients or athletes.
I know I used a blog post with this same title in the past, but I think some of the concepts need to be reiterated.

N=1 proves very little. When I say N=1, I'm talking about a sample size of one - this could be you, your cousin Vinny, your sister's boyfriend's aunt, or just about anyone else.

In research, N=1 is a case study. Unfortunately (as we were discussing the other day at I-FAST), a case study can prove damn near anything. And since it's not applied to a larger sample size, the researched modality or method could even be determined to work or not work off the results of the case study alone!

In the real world, the same thing happens. Someone who only coaches one athlete, one client, etc. gets results doing things a certain way and assumes that everyone out there should be doing the same thing. In contrast, when you work with a large number of clients/athletes, all with different backgrounds, goals, injuries, etc., you have a much better perspective on what things work, as well as what doesn't. The goal of programming is always to provide optimal stimulation while attempting to shed away the "fluff."

When applying information to your own training or coaching, do your best to reference the people that are working with (or who have worked with) a wide variety of clients. No two clients are ever the same; two baseball players may have their sport in common, but everything else could be totally different. You should strive to apply the basic biomechanical principles, while simultaneously accounting for their individual tendencies. Doing so will give you the best chance for success, regardless of who it is you're working with.