This is an expanded version of a post originally published on GUStrength's blog in July, 2009.

More and more, everyone is learning that "diets" don't work. Sure, people drop weight on diets but they fail to make a lasting change. I don't need to go into this, you know all about yo-yo dieting. Despite this there are still plenty of judgmental folks (who probably wouldn't know a problem if it bit them in the tuchus) who will say stuff like, "jeez, what ever happened to old fashioned self-control".

I was reading a blog the other day that mentioned diets and how they don't work and somebody had to come on and make this comment about self-control. I was taken aback not only by the judgmental attitude but also by the fact that the commenter completely failed to see the point of the post.

Diets are ALL ABOUT SELF-CONTROL. And they don't work. Self control doesn't work. Do the math. Are you getting this? It ain't about self-control.

Self-Control is basically the same thing as impulse control. And it is also pretty much the same thing as self-denial. These are short-term solutions to a long-term problem.

Say you are waiting in line and some obnoxious person butts in front of you and then glares at you as if daring you to do something about it. You quash your impulse to smack him one. That is self-control. Good for you. You have mastered your anger. This time.

Now, lets say that by some quirk of fate this kind of thing happens on Monday and then again Tuesday, Wednesday, and every other day of the week.

Here is the thing. Even though you practiced self-control on Monday it is no guarantee that you will be better equipped to handle this situation when Friday rolls around and it happens for the fifth time. In fact, by that time you will likely be fed up and when buddinsky number five comes along you may just go off like Mentos and Diet Coke.

The Diet Coke/Mentos Theory of Fat Loss
image by Mike Murphy via wikimedia

The reason self-control works for what it is good for…controlling aggressive impulses and other unsociable or inappropriate behavior is because we are not constantly faced with situations like this. That is, in situations where we have to learn not to give in to our more primitive and greedy impulses.

But when we treat all our eating habits and exercise habits in terms of self-control we tend to become less able to regulate our behavior well over time. If your entire life becomes nothing more than controlling every "impulse" and those impulses make you feel guilty even when you don't give in to them you become MORE likely to turn to those very activities you are trying to avoid.

Self-control tends to involve a set of rules and regulations that we adhere to. Matter of fact, most experiments involving self-control (in children) have started with a "rule", in a way. Such as leaving a treat in a room and saying you can have ONE treat now but if you wait until I come back you can have TWO.

You are ALLOWED to take the treat. The only reason you must practice self-control is because the rule says if you control yourself and wait for gratification you get MORE. Sounds like the way many people end up dieting! It's a confusing message. If you adhere to the rules you get to have a reward. If you reward yourself you are "cheating" (having a cheat meal).

The key, therefore, is not self-control but self-regulation. This is a subtle but very important distinction. More and more people, of late, are expressing concern over the fat loss focus of diets. Instead, some say, we should focus on healthy practices, which have a built-in reward system and should result, in the long run, in fat loss. Meanwhile, a healthier lifestyles that is focused on health rather than loss of fat will have immediate health benefits.¹

Now, I don't know if this dichotomous view of fat loss is the way to go. It may be a bit naive to assume that the simple desire to live healthier will result in an obese person becoming a thin one. However, it should be a distinct improvement for some of the focus on fat to be shifted towards health. A more balanced perspective, if you will. Hyper-focused modalities tend to result in these punishment-reward systems that we see in "dieting" and this is the dieter engaging in "self-control". A more balanced approach which has as it's end goal a healthy body and mind should go much further toward self-regulatory behavior. The difference between self-regulation and self-control is that self-regulation means that you are IN CHARGE of yourself. Whereas, self-control is actually placing the locus of control externally rather than within yourself.

Self-control, according to Michael Kellerman in Enhancing Recovery is a "mode of volition in which an individual works according to an internal model of an action requested or desired by another person without necessarily integrating this model into his own system of belief."

Requested by another person and NOT integrated in his own system of belief. That is the take home point. The "other person" is the person who wrote the diet plan you happen to be using. Or, we could just replace person with plan. The point is we don't get anywhere in the long run because the behaviors we use during periods of "self-control" do not become a part of our own governing system. Kellerman says that in the long run this results in "alienation" where a person becomes unable to behave according to his or her own needs.

Self-control of this kind tends to work for a short term and then fail, followed by a reversion to previous negative behaviors or by leading directly to negative results. Each negative consequence leads to the person going further and further into a downward spiral.

Fat loss is not the only area that suffers from the misunderstanding of self-control. Most strength training ideas are built on ideas about self-control, after all. Even worse the "fitness" gimmicks such as "Fitness Boot Camps" and other such nonsense that makes it seems like fitness is about having some guy in BDU's yell at you.

There is an older thread in the GUS forum that calls attention to the idea that good strength training involves "not being a pussy" or "a slacker" and that people need someone to call attention to those times when they are slacking and give them a "kick in the pants". Basically you are supposed to 'force yourself' to train and go in and just get the job done. Be assured that you will NEVER succeed in your training if you regularly must force yourself to train and no amount of yelling will change that!

As I said in the thread many people think that self-control and self-denial is the key to success in training, fat-loss, everything. They think that these factors are synonymous with "discipline". The "just get it done" attitude of many trainers is inherent in the so popular cookie-cutter strength training programs that I am always complaining about. The ultimate result of relying too much on self-control is a loss of autonomy and this results in the chronic inability to self-regulate. In other words, the longer you engage in this sort of behavior, the more difficult it will be to come out of it and develop behaviors centered on self-direction and self-regulation. The end result is failure in every sense of the word. Autonomy means being IN CHARGE rather than 'in control'.

You may never have thought of it before but the idea of being in control means that you are otherwise bound to be out of control. So instead of focusing one's energy on reigning in out of control behaviors one should focus on continual regulation of behavior in the first place. I'll see if I can describe this with an analogy:

Have you ever walked by a patch of fresh wet cement on the sidewalk and been tempted to put your hand print or foot print in it? Or sign your name? Or, in some instances, even been tempted to walk right across the thing? I have. It's a bit like the urge to jump off a high object…perverse but there nonetheless. Yet, as inviting as a nice smooth patch of wet concrete is most sidewalk surfaces are free of hand-prints and signatures. Sure it happens but not nearly as often as one would think. That is, not nearly as often as one would think if people were out of control. But people largely self-regulate themselves and the urge to deface a patch of cement is fleeting and weak. In fact, they don't place orange cones and yellow tape around fresh sidewalks patches to "control" people but mostly to warn them so they don't accidentally blunder in. So, I'm saying that maybe smooth sidewalks exist because people are able to self-regulate and they don't need barriers to keep them from stepping in wet cement.

The same type of self-regulatory behavior that keeps your hand out of cement or that keeps you from testing your theory that you could land a 30 foot drop is the type of behavior that will lead to success in fat loss, or fitness, or strength training. When you self-regulate it means that you are OKAY with your life-style. You are happy and satisfied with it. Little urges stay little urges and when you give in to them you give in to them in reasonable ways. For instance, maybe you just poke the tip of your index finger into that cement. Fun stuff. Or, instead of trying the 30 foot drop you go for 15. That keeps your life balanced and controlled without a sense of denial and restriction and you don't "go off" like Mentos and Diet Coke!

 <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> <title>Above Article Ads</title> </head> <body> <!-- 2 This is the HTML section of the badge --> <script src="http://tag.contextweb.com/TagPublish/getjs.aspx?action=VIEWAD&cwrun=200&cwadformat=728X90&cwpid=514880&cwwidth=728&cwheight=90&cwpnet=1&cwtagid=54612"></script> <!-- Badge ends --> </body> </html> 

Comments

by EricT

Never assume that your “authority figure” is smarter than you. I constantly see trainees accepting everything a certain person says because they simply feel that they are not smart enough to apply any thought to it so they must simply absorb it as gospel.

I was looking around for Mel Siff items on the internet and came across Tony Gentilcore’s “Resource Page”. After the entry on Mel Siff’s book “Facts and Fallacies of Fitness” Gentilcore wrote:

“Mel Siff is smarter than you, and here is why. This book will serve as your "ammo" for any nimrod who thinks they know what they’re talking about.”

Now, Gentilcore is just being smarmy as he is apt to do. I mean what do you expect? He’s around 18 or so. But this attitude is a very typical and very real one. Logically if Mel Siff is smarter than you then you cannot hope to understand what he says enough to use it as “ammo”. So the real message here seems to be the typical one. Memorize and regurgitate everything he says to the “nimrod” you disagree with. The “nimrod” may well be wrong but if he takes the time to frame his arguments based on his best knowledge and critical thinking while you just repeat "facts" you’ve read…guess who is smarter? I’ll give you a hint…it ain’t you.

Facts and Knowledge

So, the key words in that last paragraph are "facts" and "knowledge". They are not the same thing. There is an easy way to instantly differentiate the two. Facts don't change very often; knowledge does.

The fact is that many people who would like to frame themselves as experts read books such as Supertraining and Science of Practice of Strength Training and then water it down and regurgitate isolated bits of it without any real understanding of the material. They have the books yet they are still nimrods. These books are meant to be interpreted. Books are instruments of knowledge not knowledge itself! These people have misunderstood the difference between data, facts, "truth" and knowledge.

I'm going construct (fancy for "make up") a scenario to illustrate the difference between fact and knowledge. A big thanks to John Denker's "Truth in Contrast to Knowledge" for helping me make this up. I will start with a fact:

• The biceps brachii muscle is a flexor of the elbow joint.

That, folks, is a fact. I can state without any reasonable degree of doubt the the biceps flexes the elbow joint and that this has been "true" for thousands of years. This fact did not come about when the elbow flexor discovery man found out that the biceps brachii flexed the elbow. It was a fact way before that and will continue to be a fact while the elbow flexor guy rests in eternal peace, for ever and ever, amen.

 <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> <title>Above Article Ads</title> </head> <body> <body bgcolor="#E6EFF6"> <script src="http://tag.contextweb.com/TagPublish/getjs.aspx?action=VIEWAD&cwrun=200&cwadformat=120X600&cwpid=514880&cwwidth=120&cwheight=600&cwpnet=1&cwtagid=66369"></script> <!-- Badge ends --> </body> </html> 

Let's assume that lots of people have checked and rechecked, verified and re-verified the findings of the elbow flexor discovery man and that it has been observed in many different circumstances that the biceps flexes the elbow. We hold it as fact. The fact hasn't changed. When this fact was discovered, however, our knowledge changed and now most beginning strength trainees know the fact that the biceps flexes their elbow. Or they darn well should know it! But even if only I knew it it would still be fact. Fact is, after all, fact.

So being aware of certain facts is part of our knowledge. But knowledge itself is much more far-reaching than a simple awareness of isolated facts. So let's look at knowledge. We can make different statements about the biceps brachii muscle based on the given fact:

• The biceps brachii is an elbow flexor

• Many people have observed that the biceps brachii flexes the elbow

• The biceps brachii only flexes the elbow

• At least one of the functions of the biceps brachii is flexion of the elbow joint

• when someone does a dumbbell curl they will use the biceps brachii to flex the elbow

We've covered the first statement. It's a pretty good statement. The second as well. The third statement though is absolutely false. It sounds good to most people because it is so darn exact. However, we cannot conclude that the the only function of the biceps brachii is elbow flexion. Our knowledge of the facts cannot lead us to that conclusion (in this scenario). The first statement we can go around saying all the time and therefore make an assertion without any fear that next year we will turn out to be wrong and so have our career go down the drain.

The fourth statement is wishy-washy. Who likes a wishy-washy statement? Well, the person who wants to make use of valid reasoning and use of data should like a wishy-washy statement when it doesn't go too far like statement three does. In fact, of all five statements, statement number four is the most "scientific".

The fifth statement must be valid though, right? Wrong. First of all, we've assumed that a dumbbell curl is elbow flexion against resistance. We don't need to argue that. However, based on the simple fact that the biceps brachii is a known flexor of the elbow joint we cannot conclude that everyone who does a dumbbell curl will use the bicpes brachii to accomplish the movement. Could it be that there are other elbow flexors? If a persons biceps were destroyed or paralyzed could they still flex the elbow and thus perform a curl exercise? We don't know because we don't have enough data. We lack the facts. So we cannot assert that statement five is "true".

So part of knowledge is recognizing the limitations of facts. Let's say we want to know about statement five. It's not so easy. In fact it is downright difficult to ascertain the validity of that statement. You've got figure out a whole lot of other things about how the muscles and movements work and how they are controlled by the nervous system.

Is there more than one flexor of the elbow? Do these muscles work together? If so, can one muscle be "left out"? Also, if one muscle is paralyzed, can another muscle "take it's place? Or, if not, can remaining muscles be "re-educated" in some way to perform the movement? In short, can we say that EVERYBODY will use their biceps brachii if they perform a dumbbell curl? We cannot. Based on the one isolated fact that the biceps is an elbow flexor we cannot hold statement five as valid. We even lack data to make it reasonably less precise and so make it more valid.

Hypothesis

However, we could hypothesize statement five. If the statement is a hypothesis we are not saying it's true, we are saying that maybe it's true. Maybe it's not. We could even say, "it's probably true", and as long as we don't get precious about it it's still a hypothesis.

We want to avoid getting attached to our ideas. So a great way to handle statement five would be to immediately go a look for something that will make it invalid. Proving it would be very difficult indeed. But invalidating it in a way that it will never be an absolute assertion is easier. We could do research to look for well documented cases, for instance, of the results of paralyzed biceps brachii (and perhaps associated muscles) and the effects this has on flexion of the elbow. We may find case studies. Even one well documented case study, no matter how exceptional it may prove to be, is enough to disprove the hypothesis. Enough to make to make us abandon the general statement as it stands. By doing this we've also countered the oft repeated assertion that 'case studies are useless'. See, science isn't so mysterious after all.

On the other hand, perhaps a friend of ours tells us a story about his cousin Bob and how Bob lost the use of his biceps brachii but was able to, after a time, bend his elbow to some useful extent and even curl a dumbbell. This is anecdotal evidence. We cannot rely on this story. However, even this anecdotal evidence may encourage us to keep looking. After all, even though anecdotal evidence is unreliable it is not always "false". We keep looking and we find several well documented cases of people with a paralyzed biceps brachii who were able to regain elbow flexion. We could be reasonably sure that our hypothesis "when someone does a dumbbell curl they will use the biceps brachii to flex the elbow" is false. If you have a whole group of hypotheses related to the role of the biceps brachii in elbow flexion you may choose to remove this particular one.

But let's say we don't go around constructing hypothesis packages. We just wanted to see if that one statement was unreasonable, as we suspected it probably was. We've still begun to use so-called scientific-method. What's more we simply used a bit of reasoning and research. We didn't set up an experiment and we wouldn't have the means or the know-how to do so if we wanted to.

"The" Scientific Method

Now let's move on to another very likely scenario that goes on in fitness, bodybuilding, strength training and related forums every single day. Now we have abandoned the first scenario where we knew hardly anything about the biceps. But we still remember that we were able to discount statement five as being a valid assertion. Somebody states in a thread about dumbbell curls that dumbbell curls ALWAYS use the biceps brachii. You respond and say that it is unreasonable to assume that a dumbbell curl must always use the biceps brachii and it would be more correct to say that "the large majority of the time, a dumbbell curl will use the biceps brachii", or something like that.

Of course you wouldn't really make such a nit-picking statement but in the spirit of science you decide to nitpick a little. The original poster responds to you by saying, "prove it, where are the studies?", Which is the number one "unscienfific" response you will get to anything that has any claim to being a scientific assertion on a forum.

The poster has made the classic mistake of assuming that science is about studies being done to 'prove' things. When you say that his assertion is unreasonable you've hinted that you can disprove it. OR, cast serious doubt on it's validity. You've done the research. However, you have not experimented, or designed and executed some perfect example of the 'scientific method'. Yet you have engaged in science. The idea that research is something distinct from science is one of the most destructive ideas to real science out there. Your study of the literature to find examples that would serve to disprove a statement was research. Research is gathering information. The science is the "knowledge" that is gained from research. Observing, experimenting, gathering data, analysing data and studying literature are all research. What is science?

Science is knowledge. That is science is scientific knowledge itself. It is also a method or way of going about gaining knowledge. These are not the same thing but together they fall under the umbrella of the thing which we call "science". However, those who would like to confuse and befuddle us will insist that 'science is not a thing'. They would like you to buy the notion that the "act of carrying out science" is what science is. Others just like to say that science is a "method". Which is of course a thing.

We may say that biology, for example is "a science". We may also say that science is a "method of attaining knowledge". So biology is a topic we gather knowledge about but science itself is not the same thing as the areas it covers. However, since those who argue this use words like "knowledge" and "physical world", they are hopelessly confusing everyone who would like to learn stuff. The only people who are not confused are scientists because scientists don't walk around concerning themselves with "what is science?".

Since knowledge and the physical world cannot be placed into discrete little packages the very statement that "biology is a science" but "not science itself because science is a method" is one of those have your cake and eat it too moments. It's "a science" but it is not "science". To avoid such pretentious clap-trap, how about we say that biology is a category of science and that science is way of gathering, organizing, and categorizing knowledge of the physical world.

Unfortunately it has become in vogue to invoke the so-called 'scientific method' as being the same thing as 'science' and the strict definition of it. And while modern science uses much more rigid principles than the science of ancient times, that does not mean that science can be boiled down to a static cook-book recipe and that this recipe is "the scientific method'. The purveyors of such nonsense wish simply to pretend that they own the cookbook and you do not. When in fact there are many ways of gaining knowledge…it's just that some are better than others. In other words, they are saying that science is an activity and that by extension, only those with the cookbook can do it. While this may be a perfectly acceptable way to view science, it has no claim to being the only way to view it. There are many rules as to what science is NOT but there are few hard and fast rules as to what science is. That is, the more we try to rigidly define science so that we can lay claim to it while excluding others, the more we muddy it. Everyday, as a result, discussions on those forums I mentioned devolve from the discussion of science to the discussion of what science is or is not.

Do not take discussions about "the" scientific method seriously. There is not one "method" to science so if we take the term seriously we really don't get science. Knowledge can be gained in many ways and by many paths. "The" scientific method is as literal as "the" strength training method. Which is to say there is really no such "actual" thing.

"It seems to me that there is a good deal of ballyhoo about scientific method. I venture to think that the people who talk most about it are the people who do least about it. Scientific method is what working scientists do, not what other people or even they themselves may say about it."
- Percy by Percy W. Bridgman (From: Reflections of a Physicist, 1955)

We can say that knowledge and science is not simply absorbing pieces of information and then regurgitating it to beat down some "nimrod" you suspect to be engaging in "broscience". But the constant argument over science may just be putting the cart before the horse. The average student of strength training need not be armed with prodigious and complex knowledge in order to learn about strength training and be successful in doing it. And even those with prodigious knowledge will admit that their knowledge is, and will remain, woefully incomplete.

What you must not do though is fall prey to the feeling that since "science" is too complex and since the answers provided are not always concrete, then there is no use in bothering. I guarantee that even if you don't find the answers you are looking for you will find a lot of other things! And sometimes the answer is no answer. That's okay too.

We found a pretty good answer to our dumbbell curl question. So what is it that made that whole inquiry scientific as opposed to "following the scientific method" or any of the more pretentious ways to view science? We can list a few things about it:

The hypothesis was testable or checkable in some way.

For some statement to be a valid hypothesis it MUST be testable or checkable! This is one of easiest ways to distinguish science from nonscience. If there is no hope of ever being able to test something then it is not scientific.

This doesn't mean we experimented or went out and tried to directly observe people with paralyzed biceps. It means we simply looked for cases to disprove the hypothesis. That's checking. We just were able to do a lot less checking because we already suspected the statemet was too general to be useful. It's very hard to PROVE a general statement but to disprove one can be a very simple and straightforward process

We had preconceptions going in.

People often think that it is unscientific to preconceive. That is because they confuse preconceptions with bias. How can one not preconceive? It is actually more scientific of us to use our reasoning skills to give us clues as to the direction our research should take! Without "preconception" we'd be stuck on this simple problem for a lot longer than should be necessary. It's okay to preconceive..we have to conceive of a plan. That does not mean we will invent data when are preconceptions do not match our findings. We simply must not cling to our preconceptions for too long as they lead us down blind alleys.

We didn't use a cookbook "method"

We let the problem itself and our knowledge of the interconnected details lead us in the right direction. It would have been "unscientific" to simply take the statement at face value and scour Pubmed looking for "proof" of it!

We had a question and we LOOKED FOR AN ANSWER.

That is science. There are plenty of people that will try to tell you that it's not science, it's research. So it is!

The point is that science is the business of looking for the answers to questions. Endless discussions about what science is are not helpful because science is not like a horses mouth. That is, you can engage in endless debate about how many teeth a horse has, as scholastic monks of legend were once said to do, but the best way to find out is to go up to a horse, open up his mouth, and count his teeth. At no point will we be able to look science in the mouth. We used logical thinking. Or, better yet, we used what is nowadays called 'critical thinking'.

Arguments versus Assertions

How was what we did, in our scenario "logic" as opposed to many of the shenanigans people get up to on the net these days. Such as "drinking a gallon of milk a day will get you jacked"?

Well, that statement about milk is an assertion. Much like our assertion that the biceps brachii is a flexor of the elbow. The difference is that the milk drinking assertion will make you look like an idiot and the biceps assertion will serve you very well, with no decoration or qualification unless asked for. Assertions are different from arguments. Many pseudo authoritarian types go around making a whole lot of assertions but make very few arguments.

I used the word argument at the beginning of this post: "Logically if Mel Siff is smarter than you then you cannot hope to understand what he says enough to use it as “ammo”. So the real message here seems to be the typical one. Memorize and regurgitate everything he says to the “nimrod” you disagree with. The “nimrod” may well be wrong but if he takes the time to frame his arguments based on his best knowledge and critical thinking while you just repeat "facts" you’ve read…guess who is smarter? I’ll give you a hint…it ain’t you."

Going around quoting Mel Siff is simply making assertions of a type. That does not make you smarter than someone else. I am ASSERTING then, that taking the time to frame good arguments is smarter than just reading and regurgitating books. So what in the world is the difference between and argument and an assertion? An argument is a series of statements all connected up together so that you can come to a valid conclusion.

We can rest assured that nobody has ever constructed a logical argument around the proposition that "a gallon of milk a day makes you jacked". While deciding how to research our hypothesis about dumbbell curls and the biceps muscle, we used arguments without even having to think them out or write them down. Making arguments is part of logical reasoning. And we used logical reasoning to direct our inquiry. To be more specific, I'll construct an argument after the fact (yep, you can do that to, it's allowed). But first I have to explain the process.

An argument consists of propositions. These propositions are declarations or assertions and are called premises. The premises are used to come up with a conclusion. I am only concerned here with deductive arguments. In a deductive argument the conclusion is logically entailed by the premises. That is, the conclusion logically follows from the premises and if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. However, and this is a big however, arguments do not have to be 'true', so when I say, "if the premises are true" I mean that should we assume that the premises are true. In this way, arguments are not said to be true or false but to be valid or invalid. All the premises can be untrue and the conclusion can be untrue but as long as the conclusion follows logically from the premises the argument is valid. So an argument is a form of reasoning.

Inductive Arguments

Before I go on, in the interest of thoroughness, the other type of argument that I hinted at above is an inductive argument. Inductive arguments are not a great way of making a point but we use inductive thinking all the time. It is not as useful as deductive reasoning but it is not entirely useless for every day decision making. But for critical thinking it is much more difficult to pin down just what a good inductive argument is and whether it is useful at all. A great example of an inductive argument comes from Bill Philips and Michael D'Orso in "Body for Life":

"Dumbbell training is inherently safe. I've never observed a torn muscle or any other serious injury resulting from the proper use of dumbbells."1

It so happens that that inductive argument is an absurd statement but it's still an inductive argument. Maybe a better one:

"When I deadlift I pay the utmost attention to quality. I constantly check my form. I have performed the deadlift thousands of times and I have very precise ways with which to progress the lift, warm up to the lift, and cycle the lift. Out of hundreds and hundreds of deadlift sessions I have only been injured once and this was due to a pre-existing back injury and not directly caused by the deadlift. I think it is improbable, therefore, that I will be injured when I deadlift today."

That is an inductive argument. I haven't even tried to say that it is "true" only that I am reasonably sure that it is probably true. One feature that makes inductive arguments much different from dedutive arguments is that inductive arguments can be improved by more premises. If I were to add that I was only using half my one repetition maximum and that I was sticking to sets of 3 with that weight I could state with even more confidence that I probably will not be injured. I'd also be wasting my time but you get the point…

Deductive Arguments

So inductive reasoning is not useless and if you are not willing to accept the need for some inductive reasoning then you may as well not train. Because when it comes to things like injuries and safety, most all arguments are inductive! Get used to it or don't bother. It would be nice if the practice of resistance training was so pat and neat that safety could consist solely of this type of argument:

1. Dropping heavy things on your foot will injure your foot

2. Forty Five pound weight plates are heavy.

Therefore, if you drop a 45'r on your foot you will injure your foot

That is a deductive argument. It does not even need to be for sure true that if you drop a heavy thing on your foot it will get injured. It is only necessary that the conclusion is necessitated by the premises and in this case it is. Therefore this is a valid argument. And it's probably a true one as well! You could use the scientific method to test it out. Let me know.

I said before that we used deductive arguments to help direct our inquiry into the dumbbell curl biceps question. Remember, this is just a scenario that I have made up, therefore I am making up the arguments as the type of reasoning that might have occurred. This does not mean you are confined to certain arguments. We may have used different reasoning and therefore different arguments had we both been trying to solve the same problem.

We started with a hypothesis, or statement, or whatever you want to call it, that we wanted to be able to discard because we suspected it was an unreasonable statement: "When someone does a dumbbell curl they will use the biceps brachii to flex the elbow."

The reason we thought the statement was unreasonable was because we found it to be too general. The reason we found it to be too general is because of our knowledge that elbow flexion, like most movements, is not confined to only one muscle. Therefore we used deductive reasoning to lead us to the conclusion that the statement was too general. Although we didn't think them out or write them down, we can think about the form those deductive arguments might have taken, as a thinking exercise. Then the conclusions themselves become the premises that lead us to our conclusion about the original statement. One such argument may be something like this:

1. If biceps brachii is but one flexor of the elbow joint, and

2. There are several other muscles which flex the elbow such as the brachialis and brachioradialisis muscles and

3. Muscles that serve the same function around a joint can substitute for other muscles which serve that function then

The statement that a dumbbell curl always uses the biceps brachii cannot be said to be certain.

Remember that our premises need not be true. In this argument the first two premises are true and the third one is "maybe true" but would need a whole other investigation to determine. But based on the three premises, the conclusion MUST follow. That is exactly the kind of thinking that would lead us to question the statement about curls and then go actively look for instances that support our proposition that it is an unreasonable statement because it is too general and absolute.

I chose the third premise for a reason, as it represents the kind of red herring that many of the people you will encounter use to play at science and logic without really understanding it. There is a very good chance that if you presented the above argument to a person to explain how you decided to disprove the dumbbell curl statement, your subsequent disproof would be ignored and instead you will be asked to "prove" statement three. When, in fact, statement three has nothing to do with your disproof of the original statement but is only part of a set of premises you used to bring you to conceive that the dumbbell curl statement was a little dumb.

Red Herrings and Raising the Bar

Upon explaining this, painstakingly, to your respondent, you are told, "how can you ignore muscle substitution? Are you saying it's unimportant? How can you call yourself a strength trainer when you don't even think it's important to discuss muscle substitution?" This very common argumentative fallacy, which is called a red herring, a grown up version of the thing you used to do to your teacher when you distracted her with irrelevant questions until the bell rung.

Red Herrings often give way to "raising the bar" which I usually call "moving the goal posts". This is especially juicy because of the differences between and argument and an explanation. The reason you told about the argument you used to direct your inquiry was not to make an argument but to offer an explanation. While an argument is a set of statements used as evidence to support the (logical) conclusion, an explanation is an attempt to make something comprehensible. It is about the why's and wherefore's. In this instance I described the argument that I used in order to show the operation or circumstances that led me to my investigation. Often times when we make explanations we are treated as if we are making arguments.

Arguments versus Explanations

There can be much overlap between argument and explanation. Both are rationales. We are attempting to describe the logic behind the things we reason out. The main difference between an argument and an explanation is that while an argument uses premises to support a conclusion in an explanation the conclusion is treated as already accepted and we are trying to explain why or how the "fact" of the conclusion exists. Arguments can be a part of an explanation, of course.

These things are much easier in subjects such as physics when there are very well established physical "laws" or principles. In training for muscular strength and performance, however, there are very few such easily applicable and dependable rules! Good "theories" for strength training would be "risky" theories. As we shall see, most of the grandaddy laws involve very little risk and there is no "case" which cannot be interpreted to fit them.

This has turned out to be such a long post I will have to save the rest for another part. The next part will be about rules, laws, and principles and I will say some stuff about the so-called seven laws of resistance training.

 <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> <title>Above Article Ads</title> </head> <body> <!-- 2 This is the HTML section of the badge --> <script src="http://tag.contextweb.com/TagPublish/getjs.aspx?action=VIEWAD&cwrun=200&cwadformat=728X90&cwpid=514880&cwwidth=728&cwheight=90&cwpnet=1&cwtagid=54612"></script> <!-- Badge ends --> </body> </html> 

Comments

by EricT

You may have heard trainers and coaches talk about movement amplitude. I often talk about amplitude as being one of those performance characteristics that determine the outcome of a training regimen and one of the factors indicating reductions or improvement in performance.

Amplitude is also part of the "law of repetitive motion" equation developed by Dr. Michael P. Leahy, who is the founder of Active Release Techniques (ART). This "law" is an equation describing the interaction between various parameters of human motion: I=NF/AR where:

I = Insult or injury to the tissues
N = Number of reps
F = Force (as a percentage of maximum strength)
A = Amplitude
R = Relaxation period (lets just say rest)¹

I doubt that Leahy was thinking of 400 pound back squats when he came up with that and I will not attest to it's right of title as "universal law" since it will break down depending on the type of movement (I'll get into that a bit later). For resistance training it also ignores interset rest which also greatly influences tissue recovery. Most trainees keep a fairly constant rate of repetition. That is the "rest between reps" is held fairly constant. Even small deviations in rate (or frequency) will tend to even out over time.

The equation translates: Tissue injury or insult is equal to the number of reps times the force applied divided by amplitude times relaxation period. This means that the greater the reps and force the greater the insult to the tissues. The greater the amplitude and rest the lower the insult to the tissues. Most trainees will get most of that. Except for amplitude. What the heck is that?

You might know a physics definition or even several different ways of looking at wave amplitudes. The best way to describe what amplitude is, to me, is to invoke a guitar string. Think of the resting position of the string as the "zero point". Now you pluck the string by pulling on it a certain distance and letting go. The string vibrates back and forth in a wave. The peak of that wave goes back to the point which is the distance you originally pulled it, but never beyond that point. The distance between that peak and the original zero point is the amplitude. This is the most common and basic way (I think) of looking at amplitude.²

The definition of amplitude changes depending on the system (e.g. sound wave, spring, pendulum, etc.) and what to measure is a personal choice but usually the distance is measured from the middle to the extremes. And the unit of measurement could change depending on the conditions. This is important in human movement since some movements would be more correctly measured as an angle rather than a distance.

image via wikimedia

In the above image of a wave diagram γ is the amplitude. See that it fits, more or less, my description. By the way, λ is the wavelength. The important thing to see is that amplitude is basically a distance measurement. It is important not to take this thinking to far because if you try to relate human movement to wave amplitude things get messy. The time it takes for one repetition becomes a "period" and a repetition itself becomes a cycle. We don't want that although there are a number of "strength scientists" around who would have no problem applying this type of jargon to strength training.

 <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> <title>Above Article Ads</title> </head> <body> <body bgcolor="#E6EFF6"> <script src="http://tag.contextweb.com/TagPublish/getjs.aspx?action=VIEWAD&cwrun=200&cwadformat=120X600&cwpid=514880&cwwidth=120&cwheight=600&cwpnet=1&cwtagid=66369"></script> <!-- Badge ends --> </body> </html> 

So amplitude is, for human movement, range of motion or change in position, or even displacement of the implement in a resistance exercise. All three could work. The important thing to know is that it is most useful to measure amplitude as the extent of movement or displacement from a mean to the extreme range of a repetitive movement. A little imagination and you'll see that this leaves a lot open for interpretation. It gets tricky and that is why such pat little equations, although superficially useful, can never be universally applied. There are different types of amplitude where movement is concerned.

There is "external amplitude" which is the range of movement of the entire body relative to some external benchmark such as the ground or an apparatus such as a gymnastic apparatus. Then there is "internal amplitude" which is the range of motion of individual body segments or joints or their movement relative to each other.1

A very typical scenario during the progression of the squat, whether back squat, front squat, etc. is that while the load on the bar increases relatively quickly for a period of time the amplitude decreases. Amplitude is a very easy concept to understand in this case. The mean is the upright, standing or ready position. The amplitude is the total distance the bar moves from that starting point. The deeper the squat the greater the amplitude. This is only external amplitude though and ignores the movement of individual joints and body segements. Which means that even if external amplitude remains apparently constant, the range of motion may be borrowed from inappropriate joints. So it not only matters "how deep" one goes, but what point is measured. Even a squat with good and constant amplitude could be very stressful to certain tissues. For instance, only the bar travel is measured, and the apparent depth is actually lumbar flexion rather than a deep "knee bend" using full range of motion in the hips, knees, and ankles. So amplitude is NOT just one measurement and what we measure matters.

Amplitude of course is not the only consideration. It's one among many..but this post is supposed to be about describing amplitude so I'll attempt to contain myself.

Since the distance the bar travels in our scenario does not remain constant (assuming internal amplitude does) the amplitude does not remain constant. Since amplitude is part of performance then performance does not remain constant. Simple but largely ignored by most trainers.

Applying the "law of repetitive motion" to this works fairly well as a general guideline as we can see that the force applied is going up and the amplitude is going down. So the tissue stress theoretcially goes up (again, internal amp being contstant) And despite the very large forces involved the law should predict that resistance training, when performed with full range of motion and sensible volume, is less injurious to tissues than acitivities such as running. It does not make sense, in fact, to group resistance training under the same "law" as high impact activities. Plyometrics, for instance can involve forces even greater than strength training. Even simple jumping movements, such as jumping jacks, can impart ground reaction forces (GRF's) of 3 to 5 times body weight.2 Depth jumps must surely impart the greatest GRF's of any plyometric drill. How does amplitude affect these forces?

Looking at the amplitude of a depth jump, however, would yield different conclusions. A depth jump is a plyometric exercise where the trainee stands on a box of certain height and performs a vertical jump with a controlled landing while flexing the hips, knees, and ankles but controlling the torso, followed by an immediate vertical jump from the floor as high as possible.

The height of the box would be one possible measure of amplitude. The distance the shoulders move may be another. A higher box during plyometric depth jump increases the load on the body (which is extreme to begin with) and thus the potential for injury. The extra force must be attenuated during landing by increasing the amplitude of flexion involved. This increase in amplitude would by no means lessen the injury impact to skeletal tissues. During a plyometric movement there is only a certain range of amplitude that is useful because to much amplitude increases the force the athlete must overcome in order to reverse the movement. Too much force and the amortization phase is increased which may defeat the purpose of the exercise since the phase between the eccentric and the concentric must be kept short to take advantage of the stretch-shortening cycle. Suddenly the law of repetitive motion isn't looking so good. All movement isn't the same. Human movement is too complex to apply a simple little equation to.

However, we can still say that the amplitude of joint movement must be kept high or maintained in order to 1.) perform the movement correctly and with skill and 2.) decrease the chances of injury. Knowing this we can also keep in mind a few other parameters which influence movement amplitude:

Mobility and Flexibility

Mobility must be constantly maintained to ensure that movements can be performed fluidly and with full range of motion of the various joints. While there is some question as to this, for resistance training it is probably useful to posses a degree of mobility that is slightly greater than that which is required by the movement or lift. In other words, what Bompa referred to as a "flexibility reserve".3 However, I emphasize the word "slight" here. There is no need for hyper-mobility and for most this takes the form of an over-indulgence in either flexibility training such as static stretching or the prolonged indulgence in various contortions that have no relation to human peformance such as in some yoga practices.

Time of Day

Range of motion can vary depending on the time of day. This is especially true of lumbar range of motion with this effect being more marked in flexion range of motion than extension. The lumbar flexion range of motion increases throughout the day from morning to afternoon.4 And, in general, most people are more flexibile in the afternoon than in the morning.

The most oft cited data are observations by Osolin in 1971 which reported that range of motion was lowest in the morning and greatest between 10 and 11 Am and 4 and 5 PM, however subsequent observations have amplitude being greatest at different periods and most tests were done on specific body regions. The peak "suppleness" of your lumbar region may occur at a different time of day than your hamstrings. It would be extremely difficult to find good data but it is safe to say that your range of motion will increase throughout the day and begin to dip again after about 4 PM, which some wiggles in between and that the stiffness we all feel in the morning is not just a feeling but indicates much less range of motion than occurs slowly throughout the rest of the day. Diurnal variations in movement amplitude lend credence to the advice that one should train always at the same time of day, when possible. And this of course would apply to training specifically for mobility as well.

Law of Repetitive Motion and Resistance Training

A number of writers have attempted to meld the law of repetitive motion with resistance training. What the law brings to the student of strength training is the understanding that training injuries are more likely to result from cumulative trauma brought about by high volume weight training with low amplitude. This is a valuable lesson since many trainers and trainees alike tend to assign heavy weight low volume resistance training to a higher risk category than high volume, moderate intensity training. While the acute risk of very heavy loads is greater the chronic risk of high volume training, as exemplified by the bodybuilding body part split, is much greater and most injuries are the result of chronic tissue overload.

However such a formula can be nothing more than a basic guideline when it comes to resistance training. Such a formula taken as "law" could lull a trainee into a false sense of security. It is much more applicable to continuous cyclic movements such as running than to the repetitive movements of resistance training. It is also important to realize that the bodies tissues do not only adapt to movement but also to static postures and positions held habitually for long periods of time.

Comments

 <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> <title>Above Article Ads</title> </head> <body> <!-- 2 This is the HTML section of the badge --> <script src="http://tag.contextweb.com/TagPublish/getjs.aspx?action=VIEWAD&cwrun=200&cwadformat=728X90&cwpid=514880&cwwidth=728&cwheight=90&cwpnet=1&cwtagid=54612"></script> <!-- Badge ends --> </body> </html> 

by EricT

I'm going to give you three vegetables. You pick the best one.

• Tomatoes
• Green (Bell) Peppers
• Spinach

Now I'm going to give you three more. Pick the best one again.

• Green (Bell) Peppers
• Spinach
• Tomatoes

Would you like to do it again? I guess not.

The best vegetable in the first list is green peppers. Surprise! The best vegetable in the second list is spinach. If I had put okra in that list okra would have won. I loves me some okra. Fried okra. Okra inn soup. Gumbo. Yes sir. I even love the sort of slimy thing it's got going on.

I wasn't really trying to trick you. I was making a point. In the first food list I was aiming for total antioxidant content. Any antioxidant. Would you have guessed that if I had placed RED bell peppers in that list green peppers still would have won? Despite the colorful carotenes. That's right. If I was going for carotene and writing a list about "how to improve your eyesight" the red peppers would have been way at the top of the list! If I were to make a list like that, which I wouldn't.

In the second list I was aiming for calcium and magnesium content. So spinach wins the day. So which is more nutritious? It simply depends on your parameters and it is exactly why there does not yet exist a way to systematically rate food in terms of health and nutrition. Oh, believe me people are working on it. But it ain't easy. Foods are not magic health bullets. Green peppers, spinach, and tomatoes are all great vegetables. It would have been easy to make tomatoes win one too, wouldn't it?

The point then is that top ten (or twenty) lists of the "best" vegetables or any other foods are not useful EXCEPT for the people who write them. And they write them because they know that "lists" are big hits on the webernet. It's web marketing 101. Make a list and they will come. And talk. Nutrition is not a top ten proposition. Eat your vegetables. Eat the ones you love. Hey..good news, romaine lettuce has more beta carotene than spinach. I heard you hate spinach but love the romaine!

Comments

 <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> <title>Above Article Ads</title> </head> <body> <!-- 2 This is the HTML section of the badge --> <script src="http://tag.contextweb.com/TagPublish/getjs.aspx?action=VIEWAD&cwrun=200&cwadformat=728X90&cwpid=514880&cwwidth=728&cwheight=90&cwpnet=1&cwtagid=54612"></script> <!-- Badge ends --> </body> </html> 

by EricT

When is a program a program and when is it programming methodology? Easy. A program is a program when you are doing it exactly as it has been written or planned. And it is "programming methodology" when somebody spins it into one.

The question to ask about "principles" versus programs which which came first. We can use our experience with training to make many observations. While making those observations we may be using programs, or "routines". We can then take these observations and derive philosophies and principles. If the observations are sound and the conclusions we make from them are sound they will apply regardless of the programming methodology. In other words they will have a good chance of being generally true rather than just true if we use a particular way of programming.

Most such "theories", however, involve no risk because they simply cannot be refuted. Any instance can easily be "interpreted" to fit someone's philosophy or experience. In fact, this is a central problem with those who think that experience trumps knowledge. Each new experience is explained in light of the previous experience so that it doesn't matter if the experience base if five or three thousand. A narrow and prejudiced knowledge base informs each interpretation. But since the theories based on this experience cannot be refuted by any means, the theories are worthless. Theories must be testable. Therefore there must be an inherent risk!

It does not matter, though, once we have derived sound principles and philosophies, where they came from. Let me put that a different way. When you flip a light switch you know that an electrical current is coursing through the wire and making the bulb light up. It doesn't really "matter" to you whether Benjamin Franklin really stood out in a storm with a key tied to a kite. The electric light is the application and how the principles that govern that application were derived does not change anything. If on the other hand, electricity only 'worked' with lightning, then the Franklin with the kite story would be a lot more important. If we wanted power for our light bulbs we'd somehow have to harness lightning. If this were at all possible and practical.

Lightning in a bottle is exactly what you get with many training programs that claim to be in themselves part of a larger programming methodology.

We know that to gain strength we need a certain amount of stimulus. We then need to recover from that stimulus in a reasonable period of time. This is a generalizable concept. How much stimulus at any given time and therefore how much recovery is not contained within the concept. As soon as we define the amount of stimulus to apply and how to vary that stimulus, etc..we have moved away from principle into method. As soon as we put enough methods into a more or less comprehensive plan of training we have moved into programming. For the trainee doing that program to be able to derive some original principle from the program itself would be a feat of reverse engineering.

The thing about principles of training is that they point to many different possible directions. They are generalizable and fundamental rules that we use to help us make choices, among many possible solutions, for our training. Once we have made a choice we have an application or method. Something cannot be both a principle and an application! Even specific methods themselves can be based on more conceptual "methodologies".

So no matter how someone "spins" it for you, do not believe that programs are the same thing as "programming". They cannot be because they denote applied principles rather than principles themselves. The same thing applies to isolated "methods".

You can envision a principle and all the possible choices of methodologies and then methods as a branching tree with the principle being the trunk. This is a useful way of viewing it as we can then think of the impact of removing or cutting off branches or offshoots of branches. The closer you get to the trunk, the worse off the tree! In this way, we cannot cut the trunk without destroying the tree. Likewise, if we cut off a major branch close to the trunk we do a lot more damage than if we cut off a smaller branch along that trunk. This is of course assuming that the underlying principle, the trunk, is correct in the first place and this is just a simple visual model to apply to single principles.

A Word on Method and Principle

Before I move on I should point out that my use of the words "method" and "principle" are purposeful and deliberately used with specific connotations for this post. The words method and principle do not always have to have such distinct meanings and in fact the word method can be used to mean much the same thing as principle. For instance the term "scientific method" is more idiomatic and the method part of scientific method does not actually denote one specific rote or step by step process. Method in this case has more in common with an over-riding principle. Misunderstanding of this term, in fact, causes a huge misunderstanding as to what is science and what is not science. Here, however, the two words are used specifically and I hope without ambiguity.

Wave Loading and Potentiation

The perfect example is Poliquan's 1/6 Principle. Although Charles Poliquan tends to call most things he comes up with "principles", his method of doing waved sets is a more blatant example of confusing method with principle.

All ways of using waved sets rely on the phenomenom of post-activation potentiation. The following explanation of potentiation (or facilitation) is a cut and paste from the most recent GUS newsletter:

…For the layman's version it means that after lifting a heavy load your strength is "potentiated" a bit. The effect is residual so that right after you lift a heavy load you get this enhanced strength effect and repeated exposure makes this potentiation a semi-permanent state. Now we have one more reason why I PREACH about heavy loads.

Here is the more precise and complete explanation that I have taken from "The Singles Scene" by myself and Joe Weir (no point in rewriting it all):

"A nerve impulse arrives from at the NMJ (neuro-muscular junction). Ach (acetylcholine) is released into the synaptic cleft. This is excitation. Some stuff happens and what results is an action potential which travels the fiber to the muscle.

When Ach is released it excites the post-synaptic membrane of the connecting neuron, thus changing membrane permeability. If threshold for excitation is reached, the change in membrane potential between the two motor neurons increases the flow of positive charges into the cell and this is called the EPSP (excitatory post-synaptic potential). This EPSP must be at threshold for the neuron to discharge. But even if it is not the resting membrane potential is temporarily lowered and its tendency to fire is increased.

Basically the neuron’s potential to fire and thus stimulate its motor unit(s) is on more of a “hair-trigger”. It is less “inhibited” than it was prior to the beginning of a training session.

This results in both temporary changes during a workout and repeated exposure to very heavy lifting results in more permanent changes. This is part of the explanation for neural changes accounting for strength gains, especially early on."

The long-term effects of facilitation we need not concern ourselves with except to realize it is one of the ways in which the nervous system adapts to heavy lifting and thus how we grow stronger.

The short term and more immediate effects are what many so called "advanced" methods try to take advantage of. Waved sets or "wave loading" is the most famous "method" of taking advantage of this phenomenon.

So, PAP is the underlying principle and wave loading is one methodology that can be used to take advantage of this. And the wave loading methodology is used in many different ways, or specific methods. Poliquan's method is most similar to the 5/1 method except the single is performed first. Although I consider performing the single first, as in the 1/6 method, an improvement over performing the higher rep sets first, it is beyond me what is supposed to be magical about six reps as opposed to five and in fact it hardly matters if you do 4 or 5 or 6 or simple leave it open. It is simply simpler and 'cleaner' and therefore easier to implement for most trainees. The underlying rationale for WHY we use wave loading can change our expectations and utilization, though. This is another problem with principles as opposed to application. The principles point the way to something but the way to what? But I digress.

 <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> <title>Above Article Ads</title> </head> <body> <body bgcolor="#E6EFF6"> <script src="http://tag.contextweb.com/TagPublish/getjs.aspx?action=VIEWAD&cwrun=200&cwadformat=120X600&cwpid=514880&cwwidth=120&cwheight=600&cwpnet=1&cwtagid=66369"></script> <!-- Badge ends --> </body> </html> 

Looking at our tree model, PAP (post-activation potentiation) is the trunk. Waved sets is one of several possible major branches (boughs). Poliquan's 1/6 principle is one of the lesser branches on the wave loading branch. It's a twig. I think if you have my tree visual firmly in mind you will have a hard time thinking of a twig as a principle! You will also see that hacking off the twig hardly makes a difference to the tree. It will stand strong and proud.

The kind of thinking behind this “principle” could lead a trainee to think that in order to take advantage of PAP 5 or 6 reps must be used and these must be preceded by singles using a certain intensity, etc. A basic understanding of of facilitation, however, and some critical thought, would lead the trainee to understand that this is not a predictable phenomenon and any wave loading technique is simply a way of organizing one's training to try to make the most of the facilitation effect of heavy loads, thus allowing the trainee to make the necessary logical leap that there must be many other ways by which this phenomenon could be addressed in one's training. The experimentation that could result would make for a much smarter and more successful trainee than one who simply follows rote methods without any thought as to their origins.

Interval Training

Here is a simple way to look at the underlying principle of interval training as given in "Exercise Physiology" by McArdle et al. Although you probably cannot run a "4 minute mile" it is very likely that you can run a mile in four minutes. To explain that, I'm saying that you cannot maintain the very high exercise intensity continuously for four minutes as only a few "world class" runners can do so. However, given intervals of recovery in between high intensity bouts of running, you may be able to complete a mile in four minutes of actual run time. If you tried to do it continuously you'd fail and would be unable to sufficiently recover from the attempt make any reasonable effort to try again. But if you space out your all out running with some "relief intervals" or cool down periods…suddenly a four minute mile is within grasp. That is, you've "run" for four minutes and gone a mile. You just haven't "run" continuously. You have done MUCH more high intensity work than you would have otherwise been able to do.1

This is the underlying rationale, or principle behind interval training. Specifically, you are relying on high energy phosphates as the primary source of energy during brief periods of high intensity. There is no appreciable build up of lactic acid and recovery is very quick during the relief or cool down periods. This rationale, again, is what underlies interval training but interval training itself is a method or class of training. There are of course many variables such as the actual intensity of the exercise, the duration, the length of relief intervals, and repetitions. The specific activity and conditions dictate how those variables are used. For example, you would not use the same interval lengths for uphill sprints as you would for running on the level. For interval training to make sense there must be a fairly narrow range of work to rest ratios. Otherwise sufficient recovery could not occur within intervals and the whole point of interval training would be lost.

As should be apparent from the theme of this post, rationales and principles are not popularized and are therefore not common knowledge. Specific methods and programs are. High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) is a popularized method of interval training which involves short periods of high (at or above 80% V02 Max) or very high (above V02 max) followed by recovery periods appropriate to the intensity. There is nothing new about this idea and could be compared to any sprint interval but instead of being used to improve anaerobic or aerobic capacity this style of interval training has been hyped to the fat loss or bodybuilding crowd as "cardio" which has become synonymous with fat loss exercise.

Although HIIT proponents seem to have discounted any performance improvement from intervals and instead focus exclusively on the (much exaggerated) EPOC effect and and it's effect on energy substrate use (fat burning) during the post training period HITT does preserve the basic tenants of interval training. However, since the exercising public at large only understand interval training in terms of HITT and have no conception of the underlying principles of intervals in general, the door has been opened for the marketing of interval training methods that simply ignore these principles and thus the true benefits of intervals. A recent example is ShaunT's "Max Interval Training" which "turns interval training on it's head" by using long five minute periods of "high intensity" followed by very brief one minute relief intervals. If you have understood the rationale for intervals thus far, then you will understand that this "method" is nonsense. The cool down periods are much too short to allow sufficient recovery so that any true semblance of "high" intensity could not be maintained throughout the session.

Max Interval Training is an example of a common phenomenon when methods or programs are "improved" upon by individuals who lack a basic understanding of the difference between method and principle. Usually this results in simply "making it harder" rather than making it more efficient or effective for the goals at hand. Since the method is simply a brainless “tweak” of an existing exercise craze, any attempt to rationalize it would have to be based on the circumstance of training rather than any principle or rationale that came before. This is called a “spin”. It is inventing a set of rationales after the fact to explain the proposed results of the training and the reasons therefore for doing it.

Comments

 <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> <title>Above Article Ads</title> </head> <body> <!-- 2 This is the HTML section of the badge --> <script src="http://tag.contextweb.com/TagPublish/getjs.aspx?action=VIEWAD&cwrun=200&cwadformat=728X90&cwpid=514880&cwwidth=728&cwheight=90&cwpnet=1&cwtagid=54612"></script> <!-- Badge ends --> </body> </html> 

by EricT