PDA

View Full Version : Something you can not prove!


Josh Whiting
01-04-2007, 07:03 AM
T-Nation have an upcoming article that is based around the following:

TC asks eight strength coaches one question: "What do you believe to be true, even though you can't prove it?" Freed of the shackles of scientific references, our coaches came up with some interesting and maybe even groundbreaking assertions. Their answers may surprise you!

This is the link: http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1395204

What would your thing (or things) be?

Neal Winkler
01-04-2007, 08:18 AM
Do you mean in general or exercise related?

General:

1.) There are minds other than my own.

2.) There is an external world.

3.) I didn't come into existance 10 seconds ago.

Exercise:

What does he mean by "can't prove." I could have all the evidence in the world for something but if people refuse to listen to it then I am unable to prove it in a sense. But if proof in this case is just scientific references, then that will be a lot of things that can't be proven since exercise science is very incomplete according to what we know through experience. That said, there shouldn't be anything for exercise that can't be proven by experience. If you can't prove something for exercise by experience then you are holding that belief irrationally.

Mike ODonnell
01-04-2007, 09:57 AM
Hmmmmmmmm, hard to say what you can't prove...but I'll throw in my $0.02

- If you get your internal health and gut working at 100% your fitness performance will skyrocket reguardless of what training you do.

- Nutrition is 95% of your results

- We own no thoughts in this life, as they all belong to the bigger lifeforce of what life is...we are just open enough by quieting our own ego (need to own things) to hear them and transmit them through us (deep!)

- The body is capable of healing itself from any disease (of course this doesn't take into account what length you have to go through.....like a 3 week vegetable juice fast to heal something....but I believe it is always possible on some level)

- Science and Technology is doing us more harm that good in the overall human evolutionary scheme (may be 1000 years before it comes evident)

- Mandatory Fish Oil and No sugar to all kids will make them smarter, less violent, and will better off humanity in 30 years.

- No one needs Flu shots and vaccines if they lead of life of prevention.

- Our bodies are capable of living to be 150, just not possible it todays destructive environment (poor food quality, toxins, stress, lack of sleep, etc...)

Robb Wolf
01-04-2007, 02:00 PM
That looks like it will be good. Mike and Neal: Youz guyz are too smart for your own good!

Neal Winkler
01-04-2007, 02:25 PM
Mike, why can't you prove those things?

I disagree with #3, but let's not get into it here. I also disagree with #4 and #7. Some germs are just too powerful for the body. Look at what happened to the Native Americans, even those who were still hunter-gatherers, when europeans brought over their diseases. I also might disagree with #2, as it will at least depend on how old you are. Teenagers can eat all the junk they want and get great results.

Jeremy Jones
01-04-2007, 03:30 PM
1. I belive that we are all just consciousnesses bumping together in some kind of "soul soup" independent of this dimension, and that the physical world is a manifestation from a higher order of conciousness part of, but not entirely the same as, the afore mentioned aqueous mass of energy.


2. And that Dan Silver might just be the Messiah (or at least a prophet).



ahem,


WWDSD?

Mike ODonnell
01-04-2007, 05:42 PM
Mike, why can't you prove those things? .

Hard to prove you would be healthier if you did something.....unless you went back in time and did it differently to compare results. Since each of us is a completely different on the cellular level, then how does one really know until the very end? Most is just based on a positive outlook....as I am not going to hide and fear anything out there, except for snakes and riverdancing....god forbid a snake that can riverdance.

Pierre Auge
01-04-2007, 06:13 PM
LOL, this has to be one of the best conversations I've read on this entire forum. Not to mention the riverdancing snake bit.

Lord help us all if that ever happens I agree.

Neal Winkler
01-04-2007, 06:34 PM
Mike, I see some pretty simple ways one could prove some of those things. Besides, even if you can't prove them, why would you believe them? That's irrational.

Is it irrational for me to believe in an exernal world? Perhaps. If so, does that give us free reign to believe ANYTHING we want for no reason what so ever? If not, why is that particular propostion exempt from needing justification for rational belief? Do the various propositions that you listed fall into this same category? If so, why?

Steve Shafley
01-04-2007, 07:43 PM
Neal, your argument is weak for this reason:

If you really disbelieved, you wouldn't be here or even having this hallucination.

Neal Winkler
01-04-2007, 07:53 PM
I don't understand, Steve.

Mike ODonnell
01-04-2007, 07:59 PM
You want me to prove that I can cure any disease with good health? Well that is irrational, no way I can do that. How about if I live to 100 and never have cancer, did I now prove that probiotics saved me...or was the lack of distance running....or maybe those flintstone vitamins from when I was a kid.

If you do not want to believe in something that can not be physically proved in a court of law, then that is your opinion. I would rather believe that I will not get sick if I lead a healthy lifestyle. That alone may let my body become healthier because I don't think every germ makes me sick. The body is smarter than I can ever be. If germs make people sick, then if you add one sick person in the room with 10 others, the other 10 must be sick. If one is not, then that ruins the whole theory on germs have to make you sick. A lowered immune system will make you sick because it allows a germ to take control.

Taking the reverse, how does one get well once one is sick? The body fights it off. So the body is capable of healing properties. Now what is the extent on that....if someone claims from some clinic in Denmark that they have cured a cancer patient with 3 weeks of fresh organic juice fasting only and rest....is that possible? I would like to think anything is possible...other what is the use of living if you think everyone is destined to get sick and never have a chance at health. Everyone has an individual immune system...everyone has a different lifestyle...everyone has different genes....so hence everyone's health is individualistic. But one fact remains true, you have control....may be a little...may be alot.....but you have control in what you do, what you eat, how you handle stress,etc. Health is just the sum of all parts. Disease is the rate of cellular destruction is greater than the rate of cellular repair. To that point, aging in itself is a disease.

Other proofs, I have never had a flu shot, I didn't get the flu in the last 3 years, I've been exposed to many people who have, consensus, the flu germs dont make you sick (only a person with a lowered immune system gets sick). I've broken bones and never had a doctor open me up and surgically put them back together, so they must of been repaired by the body. So the body can heal itself. Simple but life observing ideas now proven.

Either way, it's a choice of perception. I don't have to wait for hard proof to have my belief and carry on my life. In the end I'll prove it when I am 99, or I may not do enough and end up in an early grave. But I do have control on what I can do to prevent disease and how I want to live my days out now. The rest I will take as it comes.

Billy_Brummel
01-04-2007, 10:07 PM
Life would be pretty bleak if we all abstained from irrationally believing once in a while me thinks.

Pierre Auge
01-04-2007, 11:52 PM
If a tree falls in the forest does anybody hear?

Oh the ever so wise Bruce Cockburn.

I think I'm going to start a commune up here in Northern Ontario and just live off the wild, like a hunter gatherer. See how long I can make it!

Steve Shafley
01-05-2007, 05:25 AM
Never mind. For some reason I read you saying you were a nihilist and doubted the existence of anything outside of your own consciousness.

Skimming vs. reading in depth in action.

Neal Winkler
01-05-2007, 12:01 PM
You want me to prove that I can cure any disease with good health? Well that is irrational, no way I can do that.

Ok, so you admit that you are irrational. Admitting that you have a problem is the first step in recovery.

If you do not want to believe in something that can not be physically proved in a court of law, then that is your opinion.

Well, not literally in a court of law as I could have a biased (or stupid) judge or jury, but certainly I do believe that one should have some decent reasons for believing something, the more decent they are the stronger they should hold belief in that proposition. Now, why do I believe THAT? Hmm, because doing otherwise just seems irrational, and that just seems wrong. But how decent of a reason is appealing to my intuition? Of course, if I need to have a reason for every belief that doesn't stop with my intution at some point then I will have an infinite chain leading back and ultimately nothing will be justified. Perhaps there are just some propositions like that, where intuition is enough to justify it. Are the things you have mentioned (like curing every disease through diet) in that same category? My intuition thinks not.

If germs make people sick, then if you add one sick person in the room with 10 others, the other 10 must be sick. If one is not, then that ruins the whole theory on germs have to make you sick. A lowered immune system will make you sick because it allows a germ to take control.

Are you intentionally trying to be irrational here? Perhaps you are being facetious and I just missed it. If not, how do I even begin to answer this? Germs don't make you sick because someone can be infected with germs but not have an illness? I suppose your going to tell me next that gravity doesn't exist because ballons float up in the air.

I would like to think anything is possible...other what is the use of living if you think everyone is destined to get sick and never have a chance at health.

Huh???

Other proofs, I have never had a flu shot, I didn't get the flu in the last 3 years, I've been exposed to many people who have, consensus, the flu germs dont make you sick (only a person with a lowered immune system gets sick).

Mike, you need to draw some distinctions between necessary and sufficient conditions. Being exposed to flu germs is necessary but not sufficient condition to getting the flu. Furthermore, having an immune system to weak to fight off the flu germs (which CAUSE the flu) is a necessary but not sufficient conditon to getting the flu. The conjunction of these two conditions is sufficient for becoming ill. In some cases, even the healthiest immune system may be too weak to fight off germs, because GERMS CAUSE DISEASES. What if I had a weakened immune system but was exposed to no influenza viruses? Would I get sick with the flu? Obviously not, because GERMS CAUSE DISEASES.

Steve Liberati
01-05-2007, 12:44 PM
Valid counter arguments but just a bit condescending wouldn't you say?

Mike ODonnell
01-05-2007, 12:55 PM
GERMS CAUSE DISEASES.
I'll just answer this as it pretty much is the heart of your belief.

I'll take it one step further to have some fun. Your body's health is based on a simple balance of 2 things, cellular repair and cellular destruction. That is the foundation. Find me something lower than that and I will then be in agreement with whatever you say. Until that time, I will take that as my final answer.

Cellular repair is a complex system that the body regulates everyday. Cellular destruction is also complex and happens every day. Any disease will pretty much have at the root of all evil destruction of cells important to health (whatever those cells may be). So disease can be summed up as the rate of destruction is greater than the rate of cellular repair. Do germs cause cellular destruction, sure. But if your rate of repair (or immune system as we will call it) is high, then your body never really sees a negative balance on the cell level of breakdown/repair. Now take into account everything in your life....stress, exercise, bad foods, air, polution, toxins, etc....how do those add to the overall equation, is it more cell destruction or does it promote more cell repair? Now your overall state of health is defined as the sum of all parts...not one in particular.

So germs DO have a hand and influence in our health, BUT they are NOT the only determining factor. (The big point in my ramblings) If you believe otherwise, then technically unless you live in a bubble you should be sick all the time (since germs are everywhere), and I am assuming that you are not. Disease and illness is a terrible thing in life, and if that has been your past experience than I am sorry that it happened. I will not however take a pessimistic view of we are all doomed, nor am I taking a naive approach to say that sunshine and giggles cures all ailments.

Plus your assumption that I say "10 people get exposed to a germ, 7 get sick and therefore the statement all germs make you sick is false" and "a balloon floats and therefore gravity doesn't exist" isn't even on the same level of thought. It should say "A balloon floats and therefore the statement of gravity makes all thing fall to the ground is false". But that would only strengthen my argument.

So are we in agreement that the statement "Germs Cause Disease" is not 100% true because germs are not the only part of the sum of what is called "health"? Or do we all need to live in Bubbles and hope my irrational tonic of sunshine and giggles keeps us alive?

Neal Winkler
01-05-2007, 03:01 PM
So germs DO have a hand and influence in our health, BUT they are NOT the only determining factor. (The big point in my ramblings)

Ok, that's what I said too. I didn't see that point in your ramblings, I misunderstood you. I thought you were making crazy leaps in logic by saying that if germs cause disease then everyone exposed to germs should be sick, but because everyone exposed to germs is not sick germs therefore do not cause diseases.

I will not however take a pessimistic view of we are all doomed

If you're trying to say that because I don't agree that the body can heal all illnesses then we are all doomed, you have misunderstood me. I think the body can heal and prevent a great many illnesses, but to say ALL is bit much, and you admit that your belief that it can is irrational. The rationality of your belief is what I originally set out to argue about, not whether or not germs causes disease. If a belief is irrational, then you shouldn't hold the belief. I'm not saying that your are dumb Mike, but to admit that you hold an irrational belief and not change it is basically admitting that your dumb. I've held all kinds of irrational beliefs, and I no doubt hold irrational beliefs right now, but once I find out about it I won't keep holding on to them. I change them to make myself more rational, because rationality is something we should all strive for.

Greg Everett
01-05-2007, 03:10 PM
Neal, is you're girlfriend not putting out anymore? Enhance your calm...

Mike ODonnell
01-05-2007, 03:48 PM
This whole thread was based on beliefs that can not be proven....so keep that in mind. I never intended to back up anything I said with proof, that wasn't the point.

I think the body can heal and prevent a great many illnesses, but to say ALL is bit much, and you admit that your belief that it can is irrational.
The body has healing potential possilbly more than anyone will ever find out because we are not able to maximize it for whatever reason. Are there people in the Alps curing early stages of cancer with juice fasting and rest for months? Maybe...I've heard the stories but I can't prove it. Can someone cure bad eyesight with deep breathing and ZMA? I'll guess no. To say all is a bit much, but it's a basis for a good outlook on having control of health. Maybe I should of said "most common diseases that are not life threatening".

As far as "what is a disease", medicine terms a disease to a set list of symptoms and conditions. So if you no longer have those symptoms and conditions do you still have a disease? This is where I think medicine does a disservice. As soon as someone hears they have a "disease" then they lose hope of good health, feeling it is never going to go away. However if you told people you have say "inflammation" rather than arthritis, can we treat and remove/control inflammation? Sure. Anyways...side rant.

If a belief is irrational, then you shouldn't hold the belief. I'm not saying that your are dumb Mike, but to admit that you hold an irrational belief and not change it is basically admitting that your dumb.
I've pretty much spent alot of revisions on how to comment on this......but it comes down to my belief system may not agree to your predetermined rational approach to the subject. That is ok. You hear disease and think "Cancer" or "Aids" and I may have been thinking more along the lines of "Arthritis" or some lesser degree of illness. However to see the body heal at a small level, I can still believe that "maybe it is possible" to heal at the larger level. Now if you want specific answers you have to ask specific questions. As we learned we both agree Germs have a hand in sickness, but the degree of which can be debated. Now same goes for illness. What degree is actually healable? That is the million dollar question that as far as I know, no one has the answer. Would I tell a cancer patient to not go see a doctor and go drink my brand of sunshine and lollipops? Hell no. (and please note....I may have added a little sarcasm in saying all my beliefs are irrational...I have that personality trait). Can I give an arthritis patient hope in healing that they do not get from their doctors? Sure, I do that every day. I don't tell them to stop taking pain medication, but I tell them that we have a chance to reduce and control inflammation. So is that still dumb? Am I still irrational?

If so....then this is the point in hockey where we throw down gloves and let the haymakers fly for 30 sec....and then drink beers together after with missing teeth and black eyes.

Scott Kustes
01-06-2007, 07:40 AM
This forum doesn't exist. Someone prove me wrong.

I'm surprised we haven't gone religious with this one yet. :)

Mike ODonnell
01-06-2007, 10:34 AM
I vowed to not use it as it has no place on a fitness forum in my opinion.

Robb Wolf
01-08-2007, 05:12 PM
Wow! Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue!

Anyone know the movie that's from?

Russell Greene
01-08-2007, 06:40 PM
I think that the main reason that ME work improves Crossfit workouts for most people who are used to following the WOD's is form improvement. Pure weightlifting workouts with long rest periods allow one to focus on form. Better form -> more efficiency -> less metabolic cost of CF workouts -> improved fitness. I think that the reason that Glassman did not anticipate the need for as much ME work in the WOD as exists today is that he was basing his programming off of the results he had achieved with his athletes, who he was coaching. Having talked with those athletes whom he coached personally on a regular basis, they would do a 5-15 minute really intense metcon workout every day, but spend much more time than that, as much as an hour, drilling form on gymnastics and weightlifting. For example they might spend 30 minutes working on squat snatches, do Fran, and then spend the rest of the time drilling handstands. Compare that to the average person who does the WOD on his own. He will do the CF warm up, which is nothing compared to the skill and form work an athlete training with Glassman would do, and then do the WOD. His quantity of skill work is much less, made worse by the fact that his understanding of biomechanics is probably elementary, meaning that he is unable to achieve virtuosity in the basic movements. Even if he does know everything there is to know about form, he has to train himself, meaning that there is no one to give him feedback. ME workouts give him time to really focus on form without the pressure of a timed workout.

Steve Shafley
01-08-2007, 06:56 PM
Uh, no.

How appropriate this is in the "something you know is true but can't prove" Russ.

Mike ODonnell
01-08-2007, 07:05 PM
I think that was meant for the "CF Total" thread....but in my current world perception, that no longer exists...so this is a good place for it.

Russell Greene
01-08-2007, 07:10 PM
This was meant for this thread. If you disagree, why? It is just a hypothesis of mine.

-Ross Hunt
01-08-2007, 08:18 PM
Wow! Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue!

Anyone know the movie that's from?

I dunno, but I definitely picked the wrong day to quit methamphetamines.

Greg Everett
01-08-2007, 08:19 PM
Wow! Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue!

Anyone know the movie that's from?

Airplane!

Yael Grauer
01-08-2007, 08:30 PM
I believe in God, fairies, synchronicity, homeopathy, phlogiston, auras and all sorts of things that I could try to prove with limited success. I also believe in non-Euclidean geometry and I really love Godel's Proof. And I really like that quote in the movie "Proof"

Catherine: It doesn't fit me. [about the dress]
Hal: It fits perfectly.
Catherine: You can't prove it.
Hal: I can disprove the opposite.

And this one:

Catherine: [Reading Robert's Notebook] "Let X equal the quantity of all quantities of X. Let X equal the cold. It is cold in December. The months of cold equal November through February. There are four months of cold, and four of heat, leaving four months of indeterminate temperature. In February it snows. In March the Lake is a lake of ice. In September the students come back and the bookstores are full. Let X equal the month of full bookstores. The number of books approaches infinity as the number of months of cold approaches four. I will never be as cold now as I will in the future. The future of cold is infinite. The future of heat is the future of cold. The bookstores are infinite and so are never full except in September..."

Robb Wolf
01-09-2007, 07:05 AM
Airplane!

right you are Ken!
Another goo-die:

"Billy, do you like to watch Gladiator movies?"

Sam Lepore
01-09-2007, 07:13 AM
"Ever see a grown man naked?" :)

Funny Movie!

James Evans
01-11-2007, 05:40 AM
If anyone still cares, here is the article:

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do;jsessionid=A6365BE5050DE3513F5EC60766 794DD9.hydra?id=1404712

Mike ODonnell
01-11-2007, 06:02 AM
"Lower intensity aerobic training is relatively useless for optimal fat loss purposes. Furthermore, for some populations, it's likely to be detrimental."

"Caring how much fat is burned during training makes as much sense as caring how much muscle is built during training."
— Alwyn Cosgrove

Possibly my favorite guy to read articles from.....right on target!

Allen Yeh
01-11-2007, 06:24 AM
Interesting article:

My comments by author:

AC - I definitely agree with what he says here, never been a great fan of "low intensities for greater fat burning."

CT - Eh...

MR - Seems to make sense and the next few times I am on a deload week I'll have to give it a spin

MB - Yikes, he seems to say that no older adults do heavy squats and deadlifts and the only ones who do are gifted genetically? Um...hm I'll have to get back to this one because my off the cuff reaction is just "huh??"

Steve Shafley
01-11-2007, 06:46 AM
MB's got some great stuff, and some stuff that is very specific to his experiences, that a lot of people never see.

Examples:

Good: One leg squat and deadlift progressions. Unilateral work.
Bad: The Paul Chek take on the transverse abdominus.

CT is, in my opinion, far gone from what he used to be. He's out in the third sigma area of the bell curve now, and quite possibly even further. His advice seems to have gone from the basics to advanced suggestions for people just like himself.

AC: On the money. Think about how many joggers, or cardio junkies you know who are really, really lean? I'm not talking about competitors, just the people you see in the gym year round trudging away on the treadmill, elliptical, or stairstepper, or outside jogging.

Scott Kustes
01-11-2007, 08:53 AM
I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.

Mike ODonnell
01-11-2007, 09:25 AM
Seriously Scott...no more music quotes for you today...I am already pissed that I was singing "2 legit 2 quit" to myself in the coffee shop this morning....ugh...

More things to add:
- Most people who workout overtrain (plus not hard enough even when they do train)
- Most people who say they eat right have no idea what right is
- The bulk of mass information out there is only confusing people on nutrition and exercise and will keep them from just taking action on the basic principles and getting progress
- Anyone who wants to get muscle or lose fat should first get their eating down as that's where 90% of the solution is......vs people who just go "jog" or want the perfect lifting progression and think that's all they need

Ron Nelson
01-11-2007, 12:07 PM
As an average kind of guy who reads the articles on T-Nation for entertainment, and sometimes information, I had the following thoughts on the article:

AC: For us under strong, over fat guys, Alwyn really is great. Down to earth, very essential, no BS. If he could get more people to listen to him, treadmill sales would come to a screeching halt. I like what he said about interval training and have used it in my off days. It works. I'm also doing his strength routine from "New Rules." It works.

CT: I rarely read what he writes for two reasons: one, I have little interest in BB, and; two, I can't understand much of what he writes. Luckily, T-Mag edits the hell out his work so you can at least read it, but he's still hard to follow. That said, I totally get what he's saying about the CNS and muscle development. Same thing Chad Waterbury's been saying for the past year when he's not shilling his book.

MR: I like Mike. Between he and Eric Cressey, I can run again. Maybe that should be, "Screw Robertson and Cressey, they made me run," but really they did. The MM video taught me to loosen up and my Achilles finally stopped hurting. His take on posture and alignment is dead on and should be listened to. Guys like me, and the gym has many, tend to lift with poor form (I used to, then I divorced my ego; reduced the weight; worked on form, now am seeing better results). His advice should cure what ails most.

MB: I like what he says because it will piss off most of their readers. Why? Just as Steve said, they don't get where he's coming from. He prefers front squats to back squats, but found single leg exercises to be more beneficial for his clients
. Most will not see that and begin flaming him in the responses. Pretty typical for that site.

Can't wait to see part deux as I figure Dan will be included. I'm guessing his theory will be related to flossing and inflammation (not joking, he's written about that several times in past articles).

Russell Greene
01-12-2007, 07:17 AM
Heavy Squats and Deadlifts not for everybody, that makes sense.

But not doing any squats and deadlifts with any client is just setting him/her up for injury and underperformance in the real world. What are they going to do when they have to bend their knees or lift something off the ground? In my experience most adults don't know how to even do those basic movement patterns correctly. Teaching them how and gradually improving strength in basic exercises is going to lead to fewer injuries, not more. It's not about the tool, it's about how you use it.

Mike ODonnell
01-12-2007, 11:19 AM
Boyle has always been a one legged squat/exercise guy from his background with hockey players, I'm sure he will stick with it. I read once someone said until you can squat one legged 6-8 times you have no business with a weighted bar and 2 legged squats. Boyle does have people doing plenty of step ups, one legged squats, etc. Of course it all depends on who you are training and what their goals are....Personally I like a good mix of both.

This is already on another thread....but Cressey highlights it in #3 and #5
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1406720&pageNo=0

Craig Cooper
01-12-2007, 07:25 PM
AC: awesome stuff, couldn't agree more.

CT: so focusing on something and increasing the frequency at which you practice it makes you better at it? genius!

MR: makes sense, but how do you functionaly improve posture outside of lifting?

MB: "I never, I repeat never, perform squats or deadlifts with my adult personal training clients. In truth, as my articles indicate, I never back squat or perform a conventional deadlift with any of my athletic clients".

I hope that Ron is right and this was taken out of context, because it sure sounds bad in the context it was written. Sure, one-legged stuff is great, but how often do you pick something up off the ground with one leg unless you're trying to show off?

Mike ODonnell
01-13-2007, 07:32 AM
Just to go over Boyles stuff and attempt to see where he is coming from:

"I never, I repeat never, perform squats or deadlifts with my adult personal training clients. In truth, as my articles indicate"
Of course what is your "typical" adult client going to be? I'm guessing probably overweight and no real experience with lifting. So I can see where he may want to do lots of single legged stuff (alt legs) and less real heavy lifting. My guess is that if you can get someone to single leg squat with 40lbs and do pullups, they will have no problem picking something off the ground...well assuming we are not talking about 200lbs+.


"I never back squat or perform a conventional deadlift with any of my athletic clients"
He does however have his athletes doing Front squats, so they are doing squats. As for the DLs, notice how he used the word "conventional", so are there other modifications he uses? I know again he loves the 1 legged squat and single leg DL with DB. I would imagine his athletes do some snatches or cleans too....which I think is more important for explosive sports. As we have seen in the past...someone with a good snatch will also easily have a good deadlift even if they don't train it specifically. Also when dealing with athletes 2 things come to mind, #1 they probably already have a good strength base from previous years, #2 they probably are imbalanced strength wise...so doing 1 legged stuff is important especially if one leg is weaker than the other. Otherwise that imbalance is limiting their maximum output and will only increase their chance of injury (as most sports are 1 legged dominant...aka you dont plant and use both feet all the time..you run, skate, change direction, etc...1 leg at a time.)

All in all...I like his stuff, but unless you know the whole program or who he is specifically training, most of his quotes will seem outrageous....but that's what gets him to stand out nowadays as well.

Yael Grauer
01-16-2007, 05:43 PM
Part 2:
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1412922

Mike ODonnell
01-16-2007, 06:35 PM
CS - confused the hell out of me and never answered his own question of "If you can only do 8 reps of a weight, when do you stop"?...apparently I need to buy more high tech equipment to know.

EC - I don't think that is new material....but I can agree. Sometimes you have it...sometimes you dont.

CW - Seems his stuff always focuses on HFT and he just wrote a new book on it....sounds too much like an endless sales pitch. He needs to write about something new.

DJ - short and to the point...I agree in the fact of attack the problems but disagree that it is not a lifestyle change...otherwise we go up and down like the massess jumping from diet book to diet book...going hardcore for a month and then giving up to gain it back. Not too mention the health risks of people taking diets to the extreme too quickly...will all depend on the person. There has to be a middle ground where you can come strong out of the gates safely and still be able to maintain a permanent lifestyle change. Some people respond well to the out of the gate....although many do not and therefore the benefit will be lost on them as they will give up. Knowing the person will have alot to do on how to motivate someone to make the neccessary changes.

Overall liked Part I but not so much with Part II.

Allen Yeh
01-17-2007, 03:27 AM
Charles Staley: Um I'm not sure I understood what he was trying to convey?

Eric Cressey: Makes sense to me.

Chad Waterbury: No idea never really done anything like he describes so not sure of the validity of hitting something 4 times a week for maximum muscle.

Dan John - I've got to believe there is some middle ground, it seems like you either attack fat loss...or your stuck in moderation? Maybe I'm missing something in what he said?

Mike ODonnell
01-17-2007, 05:35 AM
CW's stuff is basically meant for the bodybuilding crowd, but the same principle applies to if you bench 2x a week and do dips on one off day and pushups on another...volume of different intensities to incur muscle growth. Much like if you did a 5x5 program M-W-F and CF metcons T-Th where it had things like dips/pushups/pullups. Have to have a balance though to make sure the non 5x5 days are not too taxing where it takes away from a heavier cycle program.

Mark Fenner
01-17-2007, 07:05 AM
Dan John - I've got to believe there is some middle ground, it seems like you either attack fat loss...or your stuck in moderation? Maybe I'm missing something in what he said?

Well, an undeniable fact of our society is that calories are cheap. In fact, the more plentiful (and less nutritional) the calories, the cheaper they are. So, moderation in the face of economics means that just eating will likely be overdone. And you'll gain 1/4 pound a month ... and not notice it. If you try to moderately go back down ... it just won't happen.

I think the middle ground might be .... January ... trim off excess holiday fat ... February -> May ... +1/4 per month .... June drop that 1 pound that has accumulated ..... July -> October .... 1/4 up per month ... early November ... drop that pound ... late November, December ... let it fly (joking, of course).

Since many people need to do more than maintain baseline, those 1 pound drops could be 5-10 pounds drops. Likewise, if moderation is more than +1/4 per month for you, then you'll need to be more strict in your diet months. Anyway, I guess that's one way to structure your long term eating.

Structuring things on a shorter time frame (say week to week) can be really difficult. It's easier for me to say "No" for a whole month then it is to deal with friend A wanting to get wings, friend B wanting to have a beer, brother wanting to have us over for dinner, eating at my parents, etc. Also, I think there is a significant difference between saying "No" for a month and saying "No" every other Monday (26 days, or so, throughout the year). When I'm gaining that +1/4 a month, that includes days, here and there, of saying "No". Stringing them together is different.

Regards,
Mark

Danny John
01-17-2007, 07:16 AM
I think the point of the article is "things you can't prove." I've watched far too many people try to eat "good" or "normal" or whatever that means and slowly add weight. I'm 50 this year as an athlete and I think that my observations here are simply that...observations. Yet, I can't help thinking I'm right here. It is, by the way, probably more "natural," too to go through these swings.

No tit for tat here, but look at the number of IF posts lately (not just here...thanks to Robb, this is 2007's "thick bar training" or kettlebells or whatever) and, honestly, can anyone argue that IF is moderation?

It's funny to look back over my notes from a decade ago and realize that my ideas of "Atkins during January" as an ideal fat loss program had some merit...in terms of my recent insights.

Josh Whiting
01-17-2007, 11:11 AM
I also think that the slow progress made for a lot of people with "normal" or "moderate" eating means they lose momentum and give up. A diet like Dan John followed must have a real psychological benefit as the weight loss is so dramatic - you can "see" the weight coming off.

Mike ODonnell
01-17-2007, 11:19 AM
Also keep in mind...what most people think is "eating right"....is usually not even close.

Dave Van Skike
01-17-2007, 11:58 AM
Keep in mind, for a lot of people, this is not a vanity issue, it's a health issue. A lot of people think of leanness as vanity issue. I think it's a mistake to trivialize it like that. Overfatness is a health issue.

With over fatness, the issue is too much food. Eating too much of the wrong thing is a habit as bad as smoking. Would you advocate stopping smoking slowly?

It's bad, Now stop doing it. Lose the fat. Think of it as non-invasive surgery. Do it in short focused periods of 4-6 weeks so as not to let you metabolism get suppressed.

Then transition slowly into "normal" healthy eating. Do this in a targeted way, no other goals, no competing priorities. Dieting is not "normal", it's not a way of life and should not be done lightly. The goal should be to do it, get it over with and then don't get fat again. How do you not get fat again?

Ummmm. Eat right, in moderation.

Josh Whiting
01-17-2007, 12:06 PM
I'm probably a bit cynical but I believe that the majority of people will be unable to do either due to a lack of backbone (that's something I can't prove!).

Ron Nelson
01-17-2007, 02:54 PM
I think the point of the article is "things you can't prove." I've watched far too many people try to eat "good" or "normal" or whatever that means and slowly add weight. I'm 50 this year as an athlete and I think that my observations here are simply that...observations. Yet, I can't help thinking I'm right here. It is, by the way, probably more "natural," too to go through these swings.

No tit for tat here, but look at the number of IF posts lately (not just here...thanks to Robb, this is 2007's "thick bar training" or kettlebells or whatever) and, honestly, can anyone argue that IF is moderation?

It's funny to look back over my notes from a decade ago and realize that my ideas of "Atkins during January" as an ideal fat loss program had some merit...in terms of my recent insights.

My initial reaction to Dan's musings was disappointment. I was disappointed that it focused on diet and not on some training lesson, but I guess that's been done. . .and done. . . and done some more.

Upon further review, I realized he had a very valid point. If you want to got through a barrier in diet and/or training, you need to be extreme. The V-diet was too much for me as I need to chew, but Atkins did for me what the normal diet/exercise routine could not do; namely, get me down to 200 lbs. I lost over 45 lbs on Atkins (or as close to it as I could get) and have gradually put about 20 of that back on since (three years, not bad, but not terrific). I saw what Atkins did and how fast it did it.

So, in looking at Part deux of the article, I liked EC because I tend to believe what he says; I think CW is on the endless pitch to sell a very expensive book; Mr. Staley is probably right, but all he talks about is EDT, but uses different angles to keep it fresh; and, DJ hit me between the eyes when I wasn't looking. Just took me a couple of days to find out.

Mike ODonnell
01-17-2007, 06:53 PM
Seems like most articles now over there are people who are pimping things that are...oh yeah...in their new book. Sad.

Mark Fenner
01-17-2007, 07:51 PM
I think CW is on the endless pitch to sell a very expensive book

I've thought about this a bit, myself. CW is certainly on an endless pitch -- high frequency training. He's written enough on T-Nation that anyone that wants to implement those ideas can do so.

But, as to the book (and the other products by other authors) ... it costs $40. Is that very expensive? A typical training book at Borders (say from Human Kinetics) is around $20 or so, right? If you're taking home $10/hour, you're looking at 2 and 4 hours of your time to purchase these.

How many "nuggets" are required to make the book worth 2-4 hours of my time? I guess this is a function of two things: 1) how much pleasure you get out of reading training books and 2) how you are able to either use routines from training books or adapt those routines to your own, current routine. As far as pleasure goes, a movie with my wife costs $16 + gas + parking + overpriced water. That's about 4 hours of entertainment for, say, $25. The book may take an hour to skim and then 2-3 hours to read and take notes on (possibly quite a bit longer, if the author's name is DB Hammer). So, that's about 3 hours of entertainment for me. Fortunately, my wife will read the training book also ... so double that. 6 hours of entertainment for $40 is sounding better. And if it comes with a nugget or two ... great!

But, I feel your pain. I bought Eric Cressey's Ultimate Offseason Training Manual for $100. I was quite disappointed initially. I really didn't feel like I got anywhere near that value out of it. There were a number of points that could have been summarized on two pages and didn't add to the content after that. However, I read it again, and I got quite a bit more out of it. I think my first reading was "where am I going to find $100 worth of info". Heh. My wife hasn't read it yet, so I haven't got the "doubling effect" yet.

BTW, in fairness to Eric, his Magnificent Mobility DVD was worth at least twice its cost and, in addition, I got it at a discount. EC and Mike Robertson's new Building the Efficient Athlete 6 (or 8?) DVD set may be worth the $200 price tag.

With so many books out there (that are costing more and more), it's VERY important to have a group of friends that can read, review, recommend, and loan each other these training manuals. I am VERY luck to have one such friend who can afford to buy most things that interest him ... and he lets me borrow from him.

Regards,
Mark

Ron Nelson
01-17-2007, 09:08 PM
Mark,
I'd agree with most of what you said about evaluating a book on its long term value rather than simply looking at the up front cost. I also bought the MM DVD and was amazed at its value on the first viewing. I bought Afterburn and was depressed that I spent $49 for a book that said, "Exercise more, eat less." Then I read it again and, voila (that's waa-lah, Robb) I saw its value and saw more the more I read. So, I guess the lesson is, don't judge a book by its cover.

heh, heh. Sorry about the cliche (where the hell is the accent mark on my keyboard?)

Mike ODonnell
01-18-2007, 06:32 AM
I don't really buy into the E-books....cause if you read enough of their articles online....you will get the gist of what they will be telling you. Mind you might have to read the articles a couple times to get your "Waalah" feeling. Personally I always say stick with the basics we all know and progress comes....the other 10% is for really advanced training and most of us will not get there. Too much information seems to just confuse people more and more. While some mobility drills and sports specific exercises are good to use and add.....I know the base of my training has to be Bench/Squat/DL/Clean or Snatch...anything else is just going the 10% route.

Now off to go through the T-Nation archives to get some more "Waalah" feelings. :)

Dave Van Skike
01-18-2007, 11:52 AM
I don't really buy into the E-books....cause if you read enough of their articles online....you will get the gist of what they will be telling you. Mind you might have to read the articles a couple times to get your "Waalah" feeling. Personally I always say stick with the basics we all know and progress comes....the other 10% is for really advanced training and most of us will not get there. Too much information seems to just confuse people more and more. While some mobility drills and sports specific exercises are good to use and add.....I know the base of my training has to be Bench/Squat/DL/Clean or Snatch...anything else is just going the 10% route.

Now off to go through the T-Nation archives to get some more "Waalah" feelings. :)

I'm with you on the ebook thing. I've purchased maybe three e-books that I think were worth the scratch (and two of those were free) I've been having more luck and fun using the stuff that people give away.

In addition to the GPP stuff like Xfit,
I've tried some of Ross Entamait's stuff,
Did a modified OLAD,
Have dabbled in Miek Mahler's EDT for KB's, I definetly want to go back to that again.
Have used Ethan Reeve's density style training for pullups.

The only program I "paid" for is my current one, 5x5x5 from one of Pavel's books and honestly it's been around so long,in so many places that it shouldn't count.

Acrimony and philisophical debates aside, People in this field are sooooo generous. You can get rudimentary education with a library card, a search function, an email account and a brain.

Spend money on in-person coaching. Best 100 bucks I ever spent on myself was a one day workshop with Burgener.

Robb Wolf
01-18-2007, 05:38 PM
Interesting stuff regarding the usefulness of E-books. We receive pretty favorable feedback as to the usefulness/"good-ness" of the PM but I'm not sure how much of what gets published there does not get bandied around on the message board for free? Interesting...have to think about that.

This is certainly a "for profit" enterprise but the stuff I've written has been because I REALLY wanted to know more about that topic...and I have a HEYUGE list of things I want to investigate more and people I want to interview. i think if the writing is helpful it is often a product of interest and obsession, not making a "product" per-SE. Hopefully if we ever jump the shark and start re-cooking crap or just generally sucking ass, hopefully we have the integrity to close up shop and move on to other endeavors. Just thinking "out loud".

Mike ODonnell
01-18-2007, 05:56 PM
I would hardly put the PM on the same level as most E-Books out there.....PM is constantly evolving and growing....E-Books seem static in their message. Seems anyone can put an E-Book out too....many rehashing the same theories with a new twist....which may be fine for a novice person wanting a good workout routine....but not really meeting the more advanced needs of experienced people who want new topics and more information. All in all I'd rather have an evolving dynamic journal than an E-Book.

Greg Everett
01-18-2007, 06:00 PM
Seems anyone can put an E-Book out too....many rehashing the same theories with a new twist....

In a way, the rise of digital publishing (even digital print publishing, i.e. POD) is a problem for exactly this reason. Anyone can publish. Formerly being published was an indication of being an expert. Granted, the industry is fudged in more ways than I can even describe here and it by no means accurately represents the talent out there. But now it's becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between the experts and the hacks--they all have books out.

Mike ODonnell
01-18-2007, 06:12 PM
But now it's becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between the experts and the hacks--they all have books out.

So I guess you don't want my book......damn hack I am......at least I offer it for Free so no one can bitch it wasnt worth the money! Ha.....more a marketing thing for my business and just a general try to help people get off their ass.

Neal Winkler
01-18-2007, 07:12 PM
Hey Mike, how about we just call a truce. :-) I'm just a philosophy nerd who loves a good fight.

Mike ODonnell
01-18-2007, 07:27 PM
Truce? Hell I already skipped the fight and started drinking without you! Cheers! Grab a pint and let's throw darts at Greg....the "Supreme PM" ruler!....no one likes a power monger :)

Ron Nelson
01-18-2007, 11:10 PM
Interesting stuff regarding the usefulness of E-books. We receive pretty favorable feedback as to the usefulness/"good-ness" of the PM but I'm not sure how much of what gets published there does not get bandied around on the message board for free? Interesting...have to think about that.

This is certainly a "for profit" enterprise but the stuff I've written has been because I REALLY wanted to know more about that topic...and I have a HEYUGE list of things I want to investigate more and people I want to interview. i think if the writing is helpful it is often a product of interest and obsession, not making a "product" per-SE. Hopefully if we ever jump the shark and start re-cooking crap or just generally sucking ass, hopefully we have the integrity to close up shop and move on to other endeavors. Just thinking "out loud".

First sign the PM has jumped the shark and started to "suck ass:"

"This month in the Performance Menu, an interview with Ron Nelson: How I made beer and squats pay off for rapid fat loss."

Robb Wolf
01-19-2007, 06:31 AM
First sign the PM has jumped the shark and started to "suck ass:"

"This month in the Performance Menu, an interview with Ron Nelson: How I made beer and squats pay off for rapid fat loss."


Actually Ron...there may be a VERY real need for just that article...we need to talk.

Scott Kustes
01-19-2007, 10:30 AM
First sign the PM has jumped the shark and started to "suck ass:"

"This month in the Performance Menu, an interview with Ron Nelson: How I made beer and squats pay off for rapid fat loss."
Some guy lost 9 pounds playing his Wii 30 minutes a day. Anything is possible and beer and squats would make for a much more interesting workout than Nintendo Wii.

Mike ODonnell
01-19-2007, 11:10 AM
"This month in the Performance Menu, an interview with Ron Nelson: How I made beer and squats pay off for rapid fat loss."

Ron....are you stealing my E-Book from me? Mine is already out...comes free if you buy the GetBigGuns machine.

Ron Nelson
01-19-2007, 05:30 PM
Ron....are you stealing my E-Book from me? Mine is already out...comes free if you buy the GetBigGuns machine.

No. See, your e-book recommends Guinness. My super exclusive and copyrighted program uses Shiner Bock. Big difference. I'm getting ready to begin this program today.
The beer part, not the squats.

"But these go to 11."
-Nigel Tufnel

Robb,
Call my people.