We have the substitution fallacy (at least that is what I will call it) so "detraining" becomes "deconditioning" in HST…it's the same thing. It's something you want to avoid but deconditioning sounds fancy. Let's see…Mike Boyle just called limiting factors or even what some people would call natural weak links "transducers". Doesn't change anything to use a fancy sounding word to describe a well known and common thing. Doesn't lend credence to an argument but people THINK it does because jargon sells.

The strength and conditioning industry, or at least a small circle of it is caught up in the "Appeal to Flattery" thing. Person A kisses ass of person B. Person A says some such thing. Person B was flattered by person A and so person A is "right on" regardless of what person C says…even if person C SHARES person B's overalls philosophy but refuses to ass kiss.

Everyone can be prone to this without even realizing it. I had someone say to me, once, when I was saying that I didn't care for a certain well know figures new book "Hey, he's a really nice guy". Hey, so am I. And nine times out of ten I am partial to a nice person who really CARES over a an narcissistic ass who is full to the brim with "science" or whatnot. But if I think your approach is wrong whether you're nice doesn't enter into it. I might be nicer in disagreeing but I'll still disagree.

There is the vivid or dramatic effect, which in social psychology is known as the "availability heuristic". This is a biggie and EVERYONE should recognize it and this is CENTRAL to most of the arguments I made in the article.

Here is a common question that shows it:

what causes the most deaths each year in the U.S.?

1. Car crashes and other accidents

2. Cardiovascular disease

MOST people, when asked, say accidents. But statistically it doesn't even come close, cardiovascular disease is by far the biggest killer. Simply speaking, dramatic, easy to picture and "vivid" events are more available to memory and these events that easily come to mind are judged to be more likely.

In the same way, the guy that undergoes a "dramatic transformation" become representative of a programs success even though most people have very little success or degrees of success which are all over the map which is of course how the way it would turn out in a real sampling.

Let's see. You could compare really bad training with cigarettes. People are going to remember that "such and such an injury occurred doing such and such a thing" so that thing becomes bad even though it was the training history that led to it. Just like with cigarettes the deaths are disguised as cancer and heart disease. You can inhale smoke and cough from it on a daily basis for years but that is nowhere near as "dramatic" as the lung cancer that results. People can get away with promoting bad training practices and being bad trainers just like the cigarette industry can keep selling cigarettes. And before any trainers comment all insulted: If it doesn't apply to you you know it. If it does apply to you than you will prove it by getting all insulted.

Perhaps the biggest pet peeve of mine, and the one that causes me the most personal trouble when explaining my training philosophies is the FALSE DICHOTOMY. Every time I turn around someone is using a false dichotomy as an underlying premise or assumption to come up with some really ridiculous training stuff. One such thing I posted a blog post about not too long ago: Clean Style Versus Powerlifting Style Deadlift

What is the false dichotomy that lead to this? The fallacy is that strength training is divided into two extremes, Olympic Weightlifting and Powerlifting. If you think that there are ONLY two options then your whole philosophy is built on a FALLACY. There are NEVER only two options. Period. Strength training is not a choice between weightlifting and powerlifting. There are many many choices in between these two extremes. And when I say extremes I mean in terms of viewpoint, not how well any one option can lead to YOU meeting your goals of strength.

I used to be into the muscle mags and for the past few years have grown to hate them and their ridiculous 'training routines'. But this sort of thing is not exclusive to muscle mags, we also have the 5x5s, HSTs, 5/3/1's and Westside's floating around. ALL of which are, essentially meant to 'not be f*(&ed with'. You may have some choice in exercise selection but in the end you're still just a cookie on a baking sheet.

It still amazes me that:

1) People still buy muscle mags and believe that the routine will work and

2) Believe that the program was written by some bodybuilder rather than some scrawny little guy sitting in an office chair

3) That people think the bodybuilder actually used that program to get to the level he is at.

4) That every month there is a new way to add inches to your arms and shred your abs in 6 days.