Definitely is a case of someone reading a bunch of isolated science and then rationalizing about the source of their past failure.

It's not about facts and information only. It's about experience and background.

Using the image of a house of cards is a very good way of illustrating belief systems. In this case removing one underpinning belief (a card) destroys the whole belief system (the house) and the person's training rationale collapses.

But it hit me right off the bat that you could extend the analogy which is ever so the mark of a good one!

I am a little bit familiar with the case at hand. This is a person who has not only ignored the 'grandaddy laws' of training; he seems to be unaware of them. There is not one iota of foundation in the basic laws of adaptation going on there. There is no foundation. A bunch of "fact" without foundation? That's a house of cards, isn't it. As I've stated before we live in age of unlimited information with limited background.

The way information is presented to us, we are taught to consider the details before we consider the big picture. This is like walking into a forest for the first time and immediately pulling out your field guide to try and learn the name of each and every individual tree in the forest. You spend all your time studying the bark and the leaves and before you notice you've wandered around and got yourself good and lost.

All these terms "time under tension", "fatigue", "force", "effort" are just terms, nothing more. You can be a very effective trainer and trainee without every having the lingo or the scientific depth to want to use such lingo. OR you can have the foundation and experience to be a good trainer or trainee and then learn why that works the way it does, using science, which will further extend you understanding and creativity.

I think the guys at Science of Sport say it best when they say "[the] answer lies not in science per se, but in expertise." Clearly there is a lack of expertise at play here.

Like you said, alot of coaches or trainers are great at what they do and they know how to do it without the in depth knowledge of the science behind it. The guys at science of sport mentioned this as well.

Another point those guys made is "It's not WHAT you know, but HOW you learn it",or how you know it. This trainee may know a few terms but he hasn't really learned anything. Its one thing to talk about strength training and stimulus this or optimal that, but there are things you can't learn from a book. Going back to the first point, success lies in your expertise not your science. You have to get dirty, hop into the trenches and experiment with your training in a physical sense. Still keeping science in mind because afterall we can't ignore general laws of adaptations anymore than we can ignore gravity. But you can't say this is optimal because of this term or this term or this is too much because of this, you have to get up and DO, put it in practice and experiment. Find your own science to training.

I recommend that anyone reading this head over to Science of Sport and read their latest Science of Sport. Their article is not directly related to this, but its very applicable.

Thinking of this guy's "experiment", with it's subject pool of 1, himself, and himself being the "chief researcher" I was thinking of the whole business of the word experiment, experimentation, etc. Now, I frequently use the word. I might say, we're experimenting with something. But I use it loosely. That is, I am not trying to over-turn physiology! I am doing things which fit well into the accepted parameters of our knowledge, or in other words, just re-arranging things and looking at them from different angles.

To call myself an experimenter, then, might give people the wrong idea. I am simply a very good "tinker". The difference between myself, and others like me, is that I can take take strength training apart, put it back together, and then explain how I did it, why I did it, and why I think it worked or didn't work. So that is where the "science" comes in…taking the tinkering and applying the broader knowledge to it.

I'm not doing anything that seeks to re-write any books, per se. And this expectation, that strength coaches are supposed to be out there turning the whole thing on it's head all the time, is what creates a problem. Lots of coaches and trainers have gotten these responses about how they are "re-inventing the wheel", as if that is a bad thing. When in fact, that is how it works! We continually 're-invent' and tweak. Very seldom does a whole new paradigm come about. That's our job when it comes to improving training: to re-invent and improve. Not to create a revolution.

But then you have coaches who think their job is to be a research scientist and carry on "studies". Well, it takes specialized knowledge to carry on such a thing. Such amateur efforts usually turn out to be so "unscientific" as to be laughable. When we accept the limitations of our abilities, we can apply science and so be scientists, in effect. That is, we can think scientifically and use critical thinking to solve problems. But when we fancy ourselves to be grant laden university professors, we just make a fool out of ourselves. I know more about strength training then most professors, and they know more about carrying on proper "experiments"!!

The difference between myself, and others like me, is that I can take take strength training apart, put it back together, and then explain how I did it, why I did it, and why I think it worked or didn't work. So that is where the "science" comes in…taking the tinkering and applying the broader knowledge to it.

This is an excellent way to put it.

That's our job when it comes to improving training: to re-invent and improve. Not to create a revolution.

Most coaches don't have this down right.

I know more about strength training then most professors, and they know more about carrying on proper "experiments"!!

I love this :-D

Awesome post, E :-)