The Long Read (holy shit, I’m sorry)
I’ll preface my reply by remarking that as far as this matter is concerned
I rarely, if ever, engage or read that particular type of thread. However, I want to acknowledge that I understand and respect that this is what undermines the system/model for you. Furthermore, since I lack that same background, and having not read those defenses my response may lack a certain colour, luster, or nuance Still, feels important to highlight the disrepancy with which I’m coming into this with.
With regards to reconciling these remarks,
others have somewhat already done that for me
But there is one salient point missing from the discourse. And it’s a point unrelated to the 2As need for training variation.
CT has, at least once, remarked that the 2A is the most likely to imprint onto something or someone they believe in, almost to the point of dogmatism. That can be a coach, or a program. This could explain your adherance “despite” your neurotype. I’d prefer to quote it, but there are four possiblities to where I might have read that,
- These forums,
- T-nation article,
- Thibarmy article,
- Get Jacked-bootcamp which I participated in.
It’s too much to search through for it to be worth the effort. Hopefully, you can take my word for it.
As an aside, on the topic of training variation, it is my understanding that the need for it does not instrinsically mean that an individual with such needs would have an impossible time adhering to something but rather is meant to convey that this is the type of individual that’ll reach boredom the earliest.
I’d like to just pause briefly to recall earlier discussions we’ve had on this board on the merits of discipline over motivation and mention that depending on what goals a person has there may be more merit to preservering despite their boredom but if their goals are more diffuse introducing some variation without causing regression would be the better option.
It’s quite easy to switch things up, but retain staple exercises/movements and continue to overload them over time even if one changes a lot of the training modalities.
To return to your adherence being a counter-example to the type I’d further argue that according to The Material™ the 2A is the most extrinsically motivated. Thus, when you as a self-proclaimed 2A stakes a claim “publically” that “I’ll do X” having done so would feed into completing your goal.
However, I fear that by making such an observation it might seem as if I’m taking away from your accomplishment which I assure you that I’m not trying to do. I like how @dagill2 phrased it,
And if I haven’t already said it already, kudos to you for delivering on your words.
Finally, a weaker argument, but now I’m in “chronic debator”-mode, but just browsing through BTM it seems as if there is some room for impromptu variation? Obviously, you ran it and so I’ll defer to your better knowledge. My point being: there are a lot of ways to do a 100 reps of exercise X. Similarily, the 10K challenge varies rep-ranges, but I only mention this not because I’m trying to say “you are wrong” but to offer an alternate perspective that could maybe allude to the “variation”-itch being marginally scratched (albeit just enough).
On a more general note, some words on neurotyping in general. Prefaced, again, by echoing your sentiments,
so I’m not writing this to be disrespectful to him. But I too have my qualms with the system, which might appear as odd to anyone whou would be familiar with my writing on these boards overall. My explanation would be that the way I learn is primarily through wholesale adoption of any one thing, and then I use that until I’ve broken it enough times to divvy up the bits I like and can leverage and the ones I don’t like and cannot utilise.
Onwards to the model: Any model is only as good as its utility. Some are applicable at different resolutions, and are “good enough” for that purpose. To give an example, that I do not equate at all to the topic at hand would for instance be Newtonian mechanics which serves one pretty well; most of the time.
Another example: I’ve shared a link before, that while M/F gets you far as far as biological sex is concerned the rabbit hole ends in that every individual, of every species with a biological sex, is inherently unique and that to observe the topic in full resolution one would have to get that granular. I can share this again if anyone is interested.
And so the aspects that I’ve found to have the most value all relate to preferred training-style(s) and then the rest of the information is readily inferred from that. What do I mean?
We’ll use the Type 1A as an example, which would be someone who thrives on intensity. It’s intuitively evident that the type of energy systems work most suited for such an individual would be HIIT. It also makes it very easy to reason about what methods would be applicable (rest-pause, ramps, …). It also alludes to dietary needs: if you are “all-go” all the time, clearly you are going to benefit from some sugar (carbs).
What don’t I like? I do not adhere to a fixed personality model. I think it’s possible to be someone that likes to train intensively, but to have an upbringing that doesn’t make you very competitive. I’m reasonably familiar with what can go awry when a person isn’t in the right space mentally for them to not want to go into the gym and beat their body into smitherens regardless of their ordinary default gear. And so on.
Secondarily, I believe it may have been a design mistake to lay-out the types on a spectrum from left-to-right because I think there is an inherent bias in assuming that the more to the left you are the better it somehow is, because that is the direction in which most of us read
1A → 3
it also doesn’t leave “space” to redesign or introduce new types if that were ever necessary. Like designing a city with a snug-fit without leaving room for expansion. And maybe what you are observing in those threads you are mentioned are a symptom of that. This I suppose is something of a branding issue. Had the labels had distinct names that do not imply any relation between them it would perhaps have been more palatable.
Now I’m just hypothesising, but I’d postulate that CT is exposed to enough athletes and “normal” clientele that certain patterns have emerged and that there is use in using these labels to arrive at a reasonable starting-point quickly and fine-tune from there.
The reason I quote the word “normal” is because I cannot help but reflect that anyone serious enough to not only seek out a coach, but also one of genuine merit and pay that price is by definition not run-of-the-mill in some sense. Thus, there is some inherent selection bias.
To round off, I agree with you on this
and I hope that is just the dark side of commodification showing its ugly face.
And lastly, to summarise something very long very succinctly, the most I get out of neurotyping is leveraging it to arrive at this Nirvana with regards to training alone and nothing else,
Find what works for you and enjoy the spoils.
And I’ve never met a Type 3 (that also trains).