PDA

View Full Version : Evolutionary fitness


Mike ODonnell
06-25-2007, 07:33 PM
from Devany

The basic way to do an Evolutionary Fitness work out is to do Power Law training through the Hierarchical Set (HS). A hierarchical set is like the DC set described above -- three lifts in the set, but each is done to the acid burn, not complete failure. The other major difference is that in the HS you increase the weight each lift within the set. An example is to do, say, a target of 15 bent over rows without forcing to the full 15 but using your tolerance for the acid burn to stop. Then, increase the weight and go for a target 8 while letting the burn determine where you stop. Then increase the weight again and go for a target 4, but stopping when the burn hurts enough and before full failure. The two differences between DC and HS then are the burn lets you know when to stop before injury and you increase the weight in each set within the HS. The HS is far more intense than the DC when you do this

An advanced HS is to do as above and then add 2 or 3 negatives with even more weight at the end. My problem is that I train alone and usually do not have someone to help me do the negatives at the end. But, with some machines or by using one leg or arm versions of exercises, you can do negatives by lifting with two limbs and lowering with one. Of course, you have to carefully choose which exercises you do so you avoid getting trapped in a machine or stressing a joint.

When you do a HS or an HS with negatives, an HSN, you go right up the fiber hierarchy and fire those hard-to-fire FTb fibers. And, as important, you recruit more muscle fiber, the primary key to real strength and quickness. The negatives at the end recruit the most FTb that you can effectively fire for two reasons: 1. the lower threshold ST and FTa fibers are already exhausted, and 2. the negatives preferentially recruit FTb fibers. These are the fibers that make you quick and powerful.

Just curious to hear thoughts on this approach....positive or negative...

Robert Allison
06-25-2007, 09:04 PM
Over at T-Nation, Chad Waterbury seems to be offering up a different perspective on recruiting fast twitch fibers:

HOWEVER, I don't want to leave you hanging completely. Here's one practical tip I'd like to leave you with, followed by a question I'd like you to ponder. First, the practical tip:

Focus on how fast you can lift a load. Once the speed slows down, terminate the set.

Now the question (this is the key to the concept that will change everything):

If the last few reps of a high intensity set really do recruit extra muscle fibers, then why aren't the last few reps the easiest?

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1616759

Dave Van Skike
06-25-2007, 10:11 PM
from Devany



Just curious to hear thoughts on this approach....positive or negative...


neither. just stupid. i am admitted de vany skeptic, but jeesh, this is tooooo easy. what is the freaking goal with this stuff? teef whitening?

more directly, by the time you're done feeling the burn at 8, you're way to smoked for a decent 5, if you are burning up at 5, there is not going to be a 3, or it will be a sad little wilted triple at some pathetic barely double digit percentage of 1rm. Somebody should send a copy of SS or even Supertraining to the old coot....


not to put too fine a point on it...sorry if i came of sounding like Pierre on a Molson bender.

Daniel Myers
06-26-2007, 06:09 AM
I think De Vany's workouts are fine for what he wants them to do, but the "evolutionary" aspect of them always feels very forced. I just don't think the caveman did all his exercise in three 30 minute sessions per week, and that true high-intensity work was pretty rare.

I think there's a strong argument to be made for low and moderate intensity, but very high volume, like that guy on the Moynihan Institue has talked about.

Robert Allison
06-26-2007, 06:51 AM
I think that when Art talks about working out 2-3 times / week, he is just referring to his weight training. On the whole, he seems to advocate some type of physical activity every day, but most of it is of the "low to moderate intensity" type.

DeVany is very fit and athletic for a guy who is 70. That kind of longevity is one of my goals, so I am not too quick to dismiss what he has to say. To my knowledge, he was one of the first guys to really embrace the Paleo perspective as a lifestyle. The results seem to speak for themselves.

Regarding hierarchical sets, I have never tried them, nor even given them much thought, so I am not sure whether they would be useful or not.

Garrett Smith
06-26-2007, 07:02 AM
I love how all these guys "know" what activates which fibers...

Jeff Northrop
06-26-2007, 08:03 AM
In Waterbury's defense he has M.S. in Physiology from the University of Arizona with his thesis on the effects that Parkinson's evokes on strength and motor control, so I would give him the benefit of the doubt. If anyone "knows" what activates which muscle fibers he would be on the short list.

On the other hand De Vany seems like he is more of a "trial and error" kind of guy. His experiences inform him, which has a certain value. However, when both agree (along with a host of others who advocate ending a set just prior to technical failure) they might be onto something.

Dave Van Skike
06-26-2007, 11:18 AM
I think that when Art talks about working out 2-3 times / week, he is just referring to his weight training. On the whole, he seems to advocate some type of physical activity every day, but most of it is of the "low to moderate intensity" type.

DeVany is very fit and athletic for a guy who is 70. That kind of longevity is one of my goals, so I am not too quick to dismiss what he has to say. To my knowledge, he was one of the first guys to really embrace the Paleo perspective as a lifestyle. The results seem to speak for themselves.

Regarding hierarchical sets, I have never tried them, nor even given them much thought, so I am not sure whether they would be useful or not.


I'm just ranting… Seriously, I want to like the guy, he has some interesting perspectives...BUT it's the old 80/20 rule. 80% of the time he sticks to stuff that parses logically, generally accepted scientific principles etc...then the other 20% of the time, he's absolutely batshit crazy using all sorts of delusional personal examples and ad hoc ergo propter hoc proofs of his gene expression,

To the plus side, this has resulted in some enduring internets moments ala grocery clerks swooning over his pheromones and his ultra white teefs.

Don't even get me started on his motorcycle "insights"

Robert Allison
06-26-2007, 05:21 PM
Ah, yes... Pareto and the old 80/20 principle. It really does seem to apply in almost every area of life.

To the plus side, this has resulted in some enduring internets moments ala grocery clerks swooning over his pheromones and his ultra white teefs.

Agreed... I always get a laugh out of those posts on his blog. I sometimes wonder if he is completely serious, but, I guess it really doesn't matter.

Robb Wolf
06-27-2007, 01:09 PM
Ok...perhaps I'm a Devany knob-polisher but I find his stuff to be remarkably right on. if you look at his recommendation and those of kelly baggett regarding fast twitch fibers they are remarkably similar: Not too much volume lest one force a fiber change towards the endurance direction, hit the fast twitch fibers then let them recover and express the fast type.

Now there are different ways of accessing the fast twitch fibers. One is max efforts, another is speed or dynamic efforts and another is reaching momentary failure. All of these work but each in a different way and with different potential side effects/consequences. Many "good" olifters and sprinters bypass the slower twitch fiber entirely in max efforts, so they are not working up the heirarchey as Devany puts it. Art also works alactic sets...heavy weight, not a boat load of reps and plenty of rest to further accentuate power and speed. I asked him about his maxes a few years ago and he was not far off the masters PL totals for his weight and age group...as a non specialist. Perhaps not the best approach for westside BB but it is phenomenal return on investment IMO.

Another point: whether the endocrine response of exercise is the driving force in muscle gain or not I guess is debatable but there does seem to be this hit-esque thing of doing "enough" work to cause adaptation, eat a truck load of food and you will grow:
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2007/04/29/from-geek-to-freak-how-i-gained-34-lbs-of-muscle-in-4-weeks/

Dave Van Skike
06-27-2007, 01:33 PM
Well it sounds smarter when you say it......


My vast preference is for a simple approach. Art is worrying about some pretty philosophical points vis a vis paelo-ish-ness..

I agree, he gets a lot of stuff mostly "right"..in that, it gels with current thinking, to a degree, it's interally consisitent (sort of) there are reasonable minds that have similarly opined... but then....

boom, white teefs.

you can learn a lot about someone by the way they say stuff as well as what they say.... Take Gregg G...no wait, let's not.

Take Shaf.... yeah he sometimes comes off as an opinionated prick, but he is never dishonest, has nothing to gain from spreading true knowledges and occasionally outs himself with dungeon excercise videos and skirt pics....

point being, you can trust a man with no shame and no dicernable agenda.

As for the scientificals ....With thsi appraoch, I don't get it...My quesiton (as always) is "what is the goal?"...then~

what is the best tool to reach that goal? Is that a tool that I understand how to use? If this is such a great tool, why am I the only one using it, Am I in fact the only one using it? Can I measure the effectiveness of this tool (aside from the whiteness of my teef?....ok I'll stop now.)

If Kelly Bagget were standing over my shoulder, I would be inclined to try something like what he is describing, hearing it's something Art snatched out a BB mag makes me less likely to believe it...doesn't mean it's not true, I just lean towards initially asking the simple questions.

what is the source?
what is the evidence?
if the evidence is a testimonial, why should I trust it?


Sorry to bag needlessly on the old coot...I'm stopping now.

Robb Wolf
06-27-2007, 04:43 PM
White Teefs...that is freaking FUUUNAHY!

Good questions...what's the purpose in Art's training, in THAT type of training?

Not sure but Art does seem to have a "this is how I do it, this is why I do it...if you don't like it, get phocked.

It's kind of a Zen thing.

I'm not sure WHAT his agenda is other than sharing his experiences and offering some ideas of what has worked for him.

Regarding simple...tough to beat meat, veggies, fruit olive oil...some brief hard sessions in the gym to maintain strength, muscle mass and metabolic efficiency so you can ride motorcycles and chase chicks like Wonder Woman. The guy is a freaking genius!

Maybe it's reflective of how painfully geeky I am but when Art says something "odd" it pretty much bounces off me...I don't give it much thought given an otherwise amazing offering of work. When You consider his original essay and that it was on the net in like '95...that guy has changed and influenced MANY things. I think for others the goofy stuff incites a desire to circle in and go for the kill...but the guy has never criticized, extorted to publicly executed anyone....no malice I have ever detected. Just a bright dude doing what he does.
DKP)
But again, perhaps I' a Devany Knob Polisher (DKP).

Dave Van Skike
06-27-2007, 05:41 PM
Fair enough.

If you need to exorcise your latent geek, take a drive up to the old neighborhood, I'll track down a spare motorcycle for you to go out hooning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoon) about. It's been a while but, if your so inclined, we could actually get arrested.

Mark Fenner
06-28-2007, 06:23 AM
Over at T-Nation, Chad Waterbury seems to be offering up a different perspective on recruiting fast twitch fibers:


Just to be clear, this isn't an idea novel to Waterbury. Look at an undergraduate neuroanatomy textbook and it will tell you the same thing.

Regards,
Mark

Steve Shafley
06-28-2007, 06:40 AM
Waterbury = very subpar ideas sensationalized.

My agenda: You just haven't seen it yet. Wait for my sell out. You'll be disgusted and in a little bit of awe when it happens.

Mark Fenner
06-28-2007, 07:17 AM
if you look at his recommendation and those of kelly baggett regarding fast twitch fibers they are remarkably similar


I don't think Kelly B. would agree with what DeVany is quoted as saying here. From DeVany, "And, as important, you recruit more muscle fiber, the primary key to real strength and quickness." KB knows that what you need for strength and quickness is a function of where you are now. See:

http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/DifferentStrokes.html

Where you are now is measured both by your strength and your speed. Strength is an issue of muscle; speed is an issue of rate coding in the nervous system. Putting them together is power. Recruitment is a separate (and also important) issue. Strength + Speed + Recruitment = What you can Do. I think of recruitment as part of the "skill" of strength but this might not be the "one right way" to think about it. In fact it might be wrong.

You don't have to fatigue the slow fibers to get to the fast fibers (you mention this below for O-lifters). You just have to --require enough force-- to get the fast fibers to contribute. Also, the first set(s) in DeVany's proposed method are only using slow fibers unless you focus on speed (i.e., dynamic effort) -- and DeVany doesn't seem to say anything about that. Eight reps on a 15RM isn't going to do much of anything for you, is it?


Many "good" olifters and sprinters bypass the slower twitch fiber entirely in max efforts, so they are not working up the heirarchey as Devany puts it.


I'm not sure, but I think that it's not that they completely skip the slow twitch fibres, I think it is that their RFD (rate of force development) is so high, that the fast twitch fibers kick in VERY quickly. Or do they truly skip the slow-twitch? Or, do they just not have much slow-twitch to use? Or, are their slow-twitch muscle fibers innervated with neurons that have become very fast-twitch in their firing characteristics?


he was not far off the masters PL totals for his weight and age group...as a non specialist.


If the values don't occur in a meet, you can't compare them. Bodybuilders have some crazy numbers (sometimes they are even true); but they also have unpassable form.


Another point: whether the endocrine response of exercise is the driving force in muscle gain or not I guess is debatable but there does seem to be this hit-esque thing of doing "enough" work to cause adaptation, eat a truck load of food and you will grow:
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2007/04/29/from-geek-to-freak-how-i-gained-34-lbs-of-muscle-in-4-weeks/

Practical Programming has a fair bit to say about utilizing hormonal response to program training. In particular, they are looking at the T-to-C ratio. Reading it might get some other thoughts going.

Anytime someone quotes the "little-known Colorado experiment" and then goes on to show miraculous results, I get a bit skeptical. Just a hint. The guy started at 150 pounds and hadn't strength trained before (had he?). Anything works for a novice. He's also (apparently) a successful dancer; likely he has very good kinesthetics and good reactive ability. "Pure" muscular work should fit him to a "T". Finally, I would be very curious to see his one month later measurements, especially if he didn't continue strength training. As they say, easy come, easy go. I hypothesize that it was essentially "all pump".

As Practical Programming says, it's basically impossible for one set to be enough work to force adaptation ... except in the novice ... or the severely overtrained where it is promoting recovery, not adaptation.

Regards,
Mark

Mike ODonnell
06-28-2007, 08:23 AM
Waterbury = very subpar ideas sensationalized.

My agenda: You just haven't seen it yet. Wait for my sell out. You'll be disgusted and in a little bit of awe when it happens.

What....Overblown and Vegas style productions of basic ideas over at T-nation inorder to maintain a returning customer base to promote a line of supplements too?? Hmmmmmmm.....they have taken my evil plan....ahhhh, it's all business....

and yes...I hope to sell out too one day....being a martyr doesn't pay as well...it's all the presentation....SHOWTIME!...

http://www.fakebands.com/graphics/Meg_and_the_Griffins.png

Robb Wolf
06-28-2007, 09:31 AM
Steve-
If we can help promote the horrors let us know...guaranteed fun and to piss many, many people off.

Mark-
Great observations. The piece about skipping the slow twitch/lower threshold fibers is from the Weightliftign Encyclopedia and I think Sportivney Press. Undoubtedly there are adaptations towards the fast twitch type with sufficient volume.

Right again about the colorado experiment..untrained to mildly trained but I think the point that is frequently missed is a little hard training and a LOT of hard eating can yield remarkable results.

The Baggett/Devany link may be tenuous or exist only in my own mind...I do see similarities in both approaches.

Neal Winkler
06-28-2007, 10:24 AM
Mark,

I've got to disagree a bit with your assesemnt of strength and speed.

Muscle fiber recruitment is not a seperate issue from strength, it's one of the main issues. Also, rate coding does not determine the speed part of the equation, it determines the strength, and is the major contributor of strength the closer you get to max. The speed part of the equation is determined by rate of force development.

So, if you mean to say that "what you can do" = power, then "what you can do" = strength X speed, where strength = size of muscle cell + recruitment + rate coding.

Let me know if I was misunderstanding what you meant.

Mark Fenner
06-28-2007, 11:36 AM
Mark,

I've got to disagree a bit with your assesemnt of strength and speed.

Muscle fiber recruitment is not a seperate issue from strength, it's one of the main issues. Also, rate coding does not determine the speed part of the equation, it determines the strength, and is the major contributor of strength the closer you get to max. The speed part of the equation is determined by rate of force development.

So, if you mean to say that "what you can do" = power, then "what you can do" = strength X speed, where strength = size of muscle cell + recruitment + rate coding.

Let me know if I was misunderstanding what you meant.

Neal,

Please do disagree. I knew my comments were loose enough to get me in trouble *laugh*. The ideas I was trying to separate were the notions of (1) recruitment (application of more motor units to generate force), (2) rate (of firing of neurons), and (3) muscle (cross-sectional area of activated muscle cells). I didn't do so well.

When I said "what you can do" I was trying to be agnostic about whether you were performing speed sensitive work (short sprints, jumping, reactive work), power oriented work (dynamic effort work, olympic lifting), or strength work (max concentric, isometric, eccentric work). Of course, all are just at different points on the power-curve.


I did want to get at: power = strength * speed = xyz. I got confused in the xyz part; I crossed "speed" and "rate" for silly reasons (synonyms?).

strength = size of muscle cell + recruitment + rate coding

Good, yes, thank you! Now what is speed?

speed = ?

It needs to be a function of reflex (various stretch-reflexes), elasticity (storage of elastic energy in the tendons, fascia, etc.), and RFD. So, maybe:

speed = reflex + elasticity + RFD

So, a grand equation:

power = (size + recruitment + rate coding) * (reflex + elasticity + RFD)

Also, what I thought of as recruitment should really be inter-muscular coordination which will also affect display ability, but is not the same as recruitment as it is normally discussed in neuroanatomy.

Sorry for my sloppiness.

Thanks,
Mark

Neal Winkler
06-28-2007, 01:49 PM
Mark,

I think speed is going to be starting strength + rate of force development, and then maybe reactive strength. But there seems to be a bit of overlap between strength and speed when it comes to reactive strength, so I'll have to double check that and get back to you.

Mark Fenner
06-28-2007, 08:40 PM
Neal,

Siff (Supertraining 5th, pg 8) gives the following effects of training stimulus for strength. These aren't quite strength "producing" qualities, but they are close, right?

Structural:
Hypertrophy

Functional:
Intermuscular: Synch, Sequence, Inhibition, Disinhibition
Intramuscular: Number/Rate/Pattern Encoding
Reflex: Facilitation, Inhibition

Motor Learning

On speed, Siff does a great job throwing out different terms, but doesn't put them together in good relationships. We have:

Starting, acceleration and maximal strength ... on the force-time curve, starting strength is the initial value (at time ~ 0), the slope of the curve is determined by the acceleration strength, and maximal strength is the top peak of the curve. Maximal RFD is termed "explosive strength".

Siff goes on (pg 107, pseudo-quote): "explosive strength is commonly displayed in athletic movements ... [utilizing elastic energy of eccentric movement] ... the switch from [eccentric to concentric] is reactive ability".

Siff gives the following strength indices (pg 108):

Starting, Acceleration strength, RFD, Explosive Strength (max RFD), maximum strength, strength-endurance, and deceleration strength

Deceleration strength will play a large role in rebound ability and speed. If my calf can't sufficiently resist my falling body weight, I can't store energy (and hence I can't make use of stored energy) in my Achilles tendon.

Figure 2.26, pg 121 seems vaguely relevant as well.

Siff talks about speed/speed-strength/quickness on pages 137-140. I need to read it a couple of times to get it figured out.

A nice source for speed and strength discussions if Kelly B's Vertical Jump Development Bible. He focuses on: RFD and limit, absolute, relative, starting, and reactive strengths (not necessarily in that order). He also includes force absorption (eccentric strength) and "pure" speed work (catching flies with chopsticks).

I'd appreciate any more sense we can make of this. I don't have Zatsiorsky, but I've always found it more readable than Supertraining.

Thanks Neal,
Mark

Robb Wolf
06-29-2007, 09:09 AM
Good stuff guys...really has me thinking on this topic.

Greg Battaglia
06-29-2007, 10:13 AM
Rant begin:

I personally think that Devany's ideas on exercise are great if your looking for lots of speed and power. It really depends on what you WANT, as others have said. Personally, viewing the whole philosophy of exercise in an evolutionary template, I tend to agree with virtually everything that Frank Forencich has to say. I think people tend to really over think this stuff, as they do with diet. No one has really stated what the goal of this type of training might be, but as far as I can tell, it's geared toward health/longevity. The power, strength, and speed are simply [I]side effects[I] of the training. If you're an elite athlete then of course you're going to need to worry about micro-managing all this stuff and get really specific with all of the numbers and details involved in eliciting an ideal response. If you're after longevity and quality of life, which may or may not be the case, then debating this stuff is a fruitless endeavor. I don't think that Devany is exactly trying to beat world PL records, and despite this fact, as Robb noted, he happens to actually come pretty damn close. For the purposes of longevity/health I think it's a relatively closed case. Eat Paleo, move your body dynamically and varied in a medium-distance fashion on a daily basis, wake and fall with the sun, and avoid stress. That's all you need to know. Yet, people will endlessly debate whether Kelley Baggets protocol is better or worse than Devany's, or whether KB training is better than crossfit, for example. Who the hell cares??!! It's all about input, forget about the result. Exercise for the stimulus, the good feeling you get, and for health improvement and a greater quality of life. I don't even do the WOD anymore because it made me miserable. The idea of working that hard wasn't appealing to me, and I dreaded every met-con workout. Do I still workout hard? Yes, but under my own guidelines. Now I go for intense bike rides in the hills. Intense sessions on the heavy bag. Long walks in the woods interspersed with intermittent sprints whenever I get the urge. I do construction work in which I lift heavy objects in odd positions: overhead, up stairs with unbalanced weight, over rough terrain with heavy boards, up hills with a heavy wheel barrow, etc. Stop worrying about muscle fibers and energy systems, and all kinds of scientific jargon. Get your ass outside and move!

Rant ends, sorry.

Dave Van Skike
06-29-2007, 11:44 AM
Do you feel better now?

Greg Battaglia
06-29-2007, 11:49 AM
Absolutely :)

Garrett Smith
06-29-2007, 01:02 PM
Greg,
Let those who enjoy this type of discussion do their thing...

Nearly all of us have things we love to go into the minutiae about...

From http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Mental+Masturbation
Mental Masturbation is a slang term for engaging in intellectually stimulating conservation with little or no practical purpose. The phrase is often associated with academics who engage in discourse that many people find uninteresting or irrelevant.

If that's not what goes on regularly here at the PMenu, I don't know what is actually going on then...

Robert Allison
06-29-2007, 01:23 PM
Greg,
Let those who enjoy this type of discussion do their thing...

Nearly all of us have things we love to go into the minutiae about...

Exactly. While I agree that at some point doing must take precedence over thinking, as a confirmed fitness nerd I will probably always enjoy exploring these concepts intellectually. Nothing wrong with that, IMO, as long as the doing remains primary. This obviously has implications for life beyond fitness.

And, like Robb, I'm probably a member of the DKP (DeVany Knob Polisher) Club. :)

Greg Battaglia
06-29-2007, 03:07 PM
LOL, I completely agree....100%! I was just being a pain in the ass, a nuisance. I just wanted to vent a little, I wasn't really pissed off or anything. After spending countless nights in front of the computer screen 'til 4:00am reading pages and pages of information on diet, exercise, sleep (which is what I really should have been doing!!), stress reduction, and just overall health info I realized that over analyzing is going to do just the opposite for my health. Then there's the prodigious volume of scientific literature over at www.pubmed.com, and that's when the headache really begins. I'm typically an anal perfectionist, something that may appear great on the surface, but is really not a healthy trait. Just recently I've been reading a lot of Frank Forencich's info ( www.goanimal.com ) on evolution and simplicity, etc and have basically done a 180 degree turn in my ways. I have basically adopted that "Eh, who cares, as long as you get the main picture, you're good" type of mentality. It has certainly done wonders for my stress levels. Just need a little break from the nerdy stuff to be the careless cool-guy for a little; my nerdiness will probably return in the future. Anyway, nerd on!

Garrett Smith
06-29-2007, 04:58 PM
Greg,
You'll benefit greatly from your new outlook. I for one completely forgive and understand your vent, as I did a "vent" on you a little bit the other day.

Once one realizes the infinite number of levels to any subject of study, the ability to step back and look at the big picture (seeing both the forest and the trees) will help relieve a lot of the stress of never knowing everything (or ever really "knowing" anything!).

Anyway, I am an admitted nerd with definite limits on my nerdiness. Too nerdy and my head hurts. I'll also be posting my ideas on a revamped workout schedule soon, one that will be a "concurrent" strength and GPP plan, not for any super scientific reasons, simply for the fact that I like doing a little bit of everything.

Nerd on! Hear hear!!!

Robert Allison
06-29-2007, 05:12 PM
Greg,

I agree with most everything you said... I think that is why I appreciate the thinking of people like DeVany & Frank Forencich. Art couches his approach in some fairly scientific jargon, but his basics are pretty simple: be active every day, do some intense resistance training 2-3 x wk. Forencich also espouses a KISS approach; I have read both of his books and gleaned a ton of useful info from them as well.

I guess I'm somewhat fortunate in that my vocation affords me the opportunity to explore a lot of these ideas. But even if it didn't, I would still come to the PM for my geek fix. But then again, you're just as likely to find me talking health & fitness with someone in a hookah bar... how's that for balance? ;)

Mark Fenner
06-29-2007, 07:04 PM
Rant begin:

I tend to agree with virtually everything that Frank Forencich has to say.


I do too. But ... there's basically no reason behind my agreement beside "it makes me feel warm and fuzzy". He cites barely any references; many arguments are strained. Still, the IDEAS resonate with me.


I think people tend to really over think this stuff, as they do with diet.


It's only overthinking if you were right to begin with. Otherwise, it needs more thought.


Yet, people will endlessly debate whether Kelley Baggets protocol is better or worse than Devany's, or whether KB training is better than crossfit, for example.


It's not a matter of argument: Baggets protocols are better ... for improving vertical jump. That's the entire goal of his program. People follow his program and get better vertical jumps. DeVany's might be better for health and longevity. But I don't know that this have been well quantified: if you're trying to add decades to your life and you've only had your protocol around for five (?) years, there can't be much evidence of efficacy.


Stop worrying about muscle fibers and energy systems, and all kinds of scientific jargon. Get your ass outside and move!


I know you are saying this in a well intentioned sense, but it could be taken the wrong way. For example, "stop worrying about Internet discussions and all kinds of idiots debating details. Get _your_ ass outside and move"

In reality, you are following (and contributing to) the discussion for some reason that suits your purposes. I'm doing the same. We are also both following the work/play/rest/post ratio that suits our purposes. I don't know, but performance menu forum participants don't seem like the typical Internet jockeys who never get around to __doing__.

Now, back to motor units, energy systems, and that ilk. I am a scientist. Part of my mental make-up is understanding the world around me: how it works, what happens if I push here, how can I make that do something. PM seems to like the idea of power bias; I'm curious as to the physiological basis of power and hence I'd like to know the physiology behind strength and speed. It seems that this community would also be interested in that quest.

In addition, I find these discussions more interesting, more productive, and less aggravating than TV trash. This is physical rest/recovery time for me and mental stimulation time.

Regards,
Mark

Mark Fenner
06-29-2007, 07:09 PM
I'm typically an anal perfectionist <snip> have basically done a 180 degree turn in my ways. I have basically adopted that "Eh, who cares, as long as you get the main picture, you're good" type of mentality.

Greg,

Dan John mentioned something to the effect of if you are very well-planned in your day-to-day, you need a lot of randomness (chaos) in your workout. If your days are beyond your control, then well-planned workouts will benefit you. This was tied to the idea that we have a limited capacity to display free will on any given day, week, month, etc.

Regards,
Mark

Greg Battaglia
06-30-2007, 09:29 AM
Great posts. I agree with what you've all said.

Danny John
07-03-2007, 03:55 PM
I actually have a whole workshop on this idea. You see, I think that random crazy workouts are fine...in their place. One of the reasons I have come to applaud "Curves" is that they give a woman (this is a sexist institution and we need to deal with that...could you image a "Mens Only" club opening up?) who have Soccer Mom lives a chance to actually cool down by doing the same thing.

I don't feel like retyping a two hour talk, but I'm glad you mentioned this: I feel strongly that crazy workouts only work with students, "Office Space" people and the like. When I am full time full time (my days go Seven to Midnight...with dad stuff and writing and teaching and ...) the last thing I need is some bizarre crap. I crave three sets of eight with one minute rest on those days...

Dave Van Skike
07-03-2007, 04:15 PM
I actually have a whole workshop on this idea. You see, I think that random crazy workouts are fine...in their place. One of the reasons I have come to applaud "Curves" is that they give a woman (this is a sexist institution and we need to deal with that...could you image a "Mens Only" club opening up?) who have Soccer Mom lives a chance to actually cool down by doing the same thing.

I don't feel like retyping a two hour talk, but I'm glad you mentioned this: I feel strongly that crazy workouts only work with students, "Office Space" people and the like. When I am full time full time (my days go Seven to Midnight...with dad stuff and writing and teaching and ...) the last thing I need is some bizarre crap. I crave three sets of eight with one minute rest on those days...

Bingo.
how simple can I make it and get to the essential "doing-ness" of the activity.

For me the Gym needs to be like meditation. I squat. I pull. I press....I try to do it better each time, once I'm doing it not just well but beautifully, add weight til it's doable but ugly... and start again.....

It's one of the things I liked about very straightforward progressions~OLAD, 5x5, EDT, timed kettlebell sets... there is rhythm, all you need to do is focus and you can feel yourself getting better in measure-able ways. Currently on a Bryce Lane's jag, doing the 20/50.