It's a current fad to talk about fallacies of thought. You guys know that there are many different logical fallacies. But the fact is, there is a relative handful of them that are the most common and occur most often.

So many statements about strength training involve circular reasoning, which is sometimes called "begging the question" but there is debate as to whether these two are exactly the same. It doesn't matter for a simple discussion. Circular reasoning happens, basically, when the conclusion of an argument is the same as the premise or one of the premises. But the thing is, it's not always so easy to detect. I want GUS members to be adept at recognizing it. Circular reasoning is NEVER EVER valid.

A very popular statement about the deadlift can be generalized like this: You cannot deadlift very often because the deadlift is too hard on the body.

This is circular reasoning.

Why do you think?

Hint: Reverse the statement and insert "must be" in the proper place, and it becomes very clear.

Hint #2: Circular reasoning does not always occur because of an "A is true because A is true" sort of statement. It can also be "A is true because B is true and therefore A equals B."

I'll also let you ponder the fallacy of thought in the this question:

How will I reach 600lbs on the deadlift?

You cannot deadlift very often because the deadlift is too hard on the body.

The deadlift must be too hard on the body so you cannot deadlift very often.

How will I reach 600lbs on the deadlift?

You reach 600 when you reach 600?

You cannot deadlift very often because the deadlift is too hard on the body.
The deadlift must be too hard on the body so you cannot deadlift very often.

That is circular reasoning at its best.

"A is true because B is true and therefore A equals B."
How will I reach 600lbs on the deadlift?

Hmmm….Just because someone can deadlift, dosen't mean they WILL be deadlifting 600.

How will I reach 600lbs on the deadlift?

or rather its not a simple case of A(insert secret of choice) is all you need to deadlift 600. When someone asks "how", they are thinking there is a singular obstacle or rather there is a "special way". This isn't like finding a place on a map, that all you need is to know the road to get there.

On the 600lbs deadlift question, I wasn't looking for circular reasoning. Notice I said to ponder the fallacy of thought..in other words, what fallacy, if any, does the question contain?

or rather its not a simple case of A(insert secret of choice) is all you need to deadlift 600. When someone asks "how", they are thinking there is a singular obstacle or rather there is a "special way". This isn't like finding a place on a map, that all you need is to know the road to get there.

So, the above is true. You just cannot answer such a question. However, I wasn't asking about why you can't really answer the question but why the question itself is fallacious. After all, there are many unanswerable questions that are not logical fallacies in themselves.

The fallacy here is simply that something very basic is being assumed. It is being assumed that one can reach 600lbs on the deadlift in the first place. You cannot assume this so the very question is a basic fallacy in thinking. This question will not really begin to makes sense UNTIL the person reaches much closer to this goal, then it can be more reasonably assumed that 600 is in his grasp, and so plans can be made to reach this goal. You can couch this in many complex ways, like saying that one shouldn't unduly focus on far-off goals, but once you realize the basic mistake in thinking, there is no need.

Let's say a beginnner, with a 150lbs deadlift asks this question.

It would make sense for us to respond this way:

Q. How can I reach a 600 pound deadlift?

A. The real question is, can you reach a 600 pound deadlift at all? Right now, it would make more sense to focus on how you can reach a 200 pound deadlift, and then, re-asses the question.

The deadlift must be too hard on the body so you cannot deadlift very often.

By putting in "must be" I was assuming this:

The deadlift must be too hard on the body since you cannot deadlift very often.

So it's even easier to see the never-ending circle.

You cannot deadlift very often because the deadlift is too hard on the body.
The deadlift must be too hard on the body so you cannot deadlift very often.

Same. Still becomes a circle. Since, therefore, so. This is how these circular statements about training work.

Look at it closely and you will see that both these statements, essentially say the same thing while appearing to be different.

1. You cannot deadlift very often.

2. The deadlift is too hard on the body.

Now, try this.

1. You cannot get hit with a hammer too often.

2. Getting hit with a hammer is too hard on the body.

So, the deadlift becomes "hard on the body" like being hit with a hammer is hard on the body. The one becomes assumed in the other. Even without the assumption, ANYTHING that is HARD on the body cannot be done too often. So to say that anything that is hard on the body cannot be done too often is to say NOTHING NEW or of consequence. It is the same thing twice. A = B = A.

You can extend this to any exercise and it's the same. Simply saying something is hard on the body is creating an equality.

Look at this:

You should exercise because exercising is good for your health.

Circular reasoning.

So, the above is true. You just cannot answer such a question. However, I wasn't asking about why you can't really answer the question but why the question itself is fallacious. After all, there are many unanswerable questions that are not logical fallacies in themselves.

Oh, that was tricky.

So, the deadlift becomes "hard on the body" like being hit with a hammer is hard on the body. The one becomes assumed in the other. Even without the assumption, ANYTHING that is HARD on the body cannot be done too often. So to say that anything that is hard on the body cannot be done too often is to say NOTHING NEW or of consequence. It is the same thing twice. A = B = A.

Now that explains how most of the fitness writers explain their training philosophy. LOL!!

Two respondents in this post? I'll bet if this was a post on whey protein or something everybody would be all up in it. Well, you have to hone your bullshit detector for claims about whey and the like too. Right here, we have revealed one very simple key to eliminating a large swath of the bullshit on strength training out there.

Look at it closely and you will see that both these statements, essentially say the same thing while appearing to be different.

1. You cannot deadlift very often.

2. The deadlift is too hard on the body.

Now, try this.

1. You cannot get hit with a hammer too often.

2. Getting hit with a hammer is too hard on the body.

So, the deadlift becomes "hard on the body" like being hit with a hammer is hard on the body. The one becomes assumed in the other. Even without the assumption, ANYTHING that is HARD on the body cannot be done too often. So to say that anything that is hard on the body cannot be done too often is to say NOTHING NEW or of consequence. It is the same thing twice. A = B = A.

You can extend this to any exercise and it's the same. Simply saying something is hard on the body is creating an equality.

Wow. Yes indeed.

It would make sense for use to respond this way:

Q. How can I reach a 600 pound deadlift?

A. The real question is, can you reach a 600 pound deadlift at all? Right now, it would make more sense to focus on how you can reach a 200 pound deadlift, and then, re-asses the question.

Yes. Exactly! :-)