Howcome whenever Chris Aus comes up with an argument, the best that the meatheads can come up with is “Fuck off, your opinions are not wanted”? How about being open minded? This kind of response reminds me of the people at the NAAFA website (national association for acceptance of fatties).
[quote]slimjim wrote:
Look guys, there are instances where shit looks good on paper and works in the lab, but doesn’t translate to practical application no matter what the numbers say, this is true in all walks of life. The opposite is also true. Why do you need so many numbers and studies on this? If you want to know if it works, especially for you, get to the “lab” and throw some weights around. The best studies in the world won’t put the muscle on your body.
Maybe he is wrong, maybe he’s right. Sitting here expounding this study or that study won’t prove anything to anyone but yourself.
[/quote]
in cases like this folks should have the nuts to just out and say “it works for me and the athletes i work with, i don’t know why, it just does” as opposed to come up with some double talk. i mean, hell, i’d be fine with “well we do this just because it’s fun and different”.
i’ll go ahead and suggest that folks who have no opinion on this topic should just keep your “why can’t we all just get along” posts to yourselves. we all know we should all just stop argueing but that’s why we have forums for discussion. it’s how we learn.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Chris Aus wrote:
ChrisAus, you implied there was some ethical dimension to “having no resume,” by which I think you mean not disclosing clients’ names. While I understand if you want to critique this as a marketing technique, I really don’t understand how this gets to ethics?
Marketing tools can be unethical… If I were to apply for a job and when asked for a resume say I wont tell you but trust me Im good I probably wouldnt be being unethical I would probably just be being a dick…
Now if I were to sell books to the public with falacious information living off the “I wont tell you anything about me but Im good, trust me, I said so and Im honest”
I would consider it unethical.
I meant I think it’s actually a bad idea from a marketing perspective – big names attract attention.[/quote]
Fair enough. I think youve made some good posts in this thread 
[quote]doogie wrote:
slimjim wrote:
Maybe he is wrong, maybe he’s right. Sitting here expounding this study or that study won’t prove anything to anyone but yourself.
Naming athletes he has worked with would prove a lot.[/quote]
What would this prove?
[quote]seanc wrote:
Fuck “elite”.
Everytime someone says that I want to scream fuck you!
Who cares about the “elite athletes”.
Am I the only one that thinks that people who have nothing to do but train, and get paid to do it, has little or nothing to do with what “average joe” who has a 40 hour a week job and 10 hour a week commnute has to do?
I could give a fuck about someone that works with only teams.
Show me a guy that can take normal people and consistently generate massive positive changes, and I am impressed.[/quote]
Do you think that all of the trainers who train elite athletes started out training elite athletes? I could be wrong,(not in the sarcastic sense either) but I am pretty sure that these trainers work themselves up from somewhere or under someone and they have the potential to achieve results in any situation thrown at them.
This same comment was alluded to in CW’s GPP ASAP article, in which someone accused him of elitism when he said he no longer worked with people like the out of shape guy he referenced in his intro.
So please, let’s not “Fuck” the elite, but rather respect them for their achievements and modify what they can teach us to our lifestyle so we can achieve our own “elite” results.
Cheers,
Tags
[quote]boondoc holiday wrote:
basementD wrote:
The open environment that allows different opinions makes this one of the ultimate places to get information and correspond with other lifters.
smacks self in forehead.
[/quote]
What? The T-Nation isn’t a place of free and open expression?
[quote]boondoc holiday wrote:
sweety (cup and vroom) you don’t have to read this thread…[/quote]
You ain’t the boss a’ me.
Sorry if my post didn’t piss fuel on your flaming drama that warms you so. I will try to do better here:
Co-Co Puffs are overated!
Venus is the better looking Williams sister!
Timmy P stole my mothers panties!
John Davies is my ex-wife!
Brady’s arm was NOT moving forward!
How can you POSSIBLY insist that The Aviator should of won?!
Richard Gere is the majority owner of a Gerbil ranch, what does that tell you!!!
I was TOO only scratching when you surprised me in my room!
…and finally - - - -
She never told me that she was your mother!
See Boon, I was merely commenting on the futility of the arguments and making an observation that the well intentioned search for a final opinion on Davies was…futile. I crack wise, you know that’s what I do, I mean if I was actually thinking that I was going to magically “solve” the debate or make you pick up your ball and go home to more productive tasks then I would have tried harder…I mean right after I smoothed out that pesky middle east thing.
If you want a opinion, then fine…here’s an opinion on the subject at hand:
John Davies does a lot of things that people don’t like and he doesn’t seem to give a shit. His life moves on and does not depend on the approval of internet forums or his peers. I happen to think that for some bright people (Chris Aus/BB and some names that are new to me etc…) to spend any kind of serious effort in raging debate about it seems rather silly when you could pick up a phone and call John Davies, speak to him in person and ask him all the questions you would like.
Really, we could better spend our time arguing about nipple preference, prince alberts and wether or not it’s true that if you rub an empty bottle of Grow! at the stroke of midnight on Halloween Timmy P shows up in a thong, bunny slippers and curlers to grant you three wishes.
Of course all three wishes have to include him, a midget named “Luscious” and a 50 pound bag of carrots but three nonetheless.
“Now where did I put that empty bottle of Grow!?”
~ To be heard in too many homes this Hallows eve
[quote]Snoop wrote:
I believe that Davies did state that his belief in his unstable training methods was based on empirical data. [/quote]
if you go back to the thread in question, you would notice where Eric asked for ANY information showing benefit, not just empirical. CD just ducked, dived and dissapeared
[quote]diggers04 wrote:
you don’t understand the lift. try lowering yourself as slow as possbile with one arm. its harder than pulling up with 2 arms which is how you do it.
btw. you can’t do the Rx with 60 sec holds and you can’t brdige to a stand either…so quit kidding yourself
[/quote]
Why dont you go back to chris aus’s post that you quoted and read it again. If you dont understand what he said, I think kindergarten is a requirement for you.
[quote]ChrisKing wrote:
doogie wrote:
slimjim wrote:
Maybe he is wrong, maybe he’s right. Sitting here expounding this study or that study won’t prove anything to anyone but yourself.
Naming athletes he has worked with would prove a lot.
What would this prove?[/quote]
You know what I actually agree with this… It may not prove too much at all… Sure a coach might come across a single freak of nature. Then ride the name and have other freaks of nature come and be coached by him… So yeah its entirely possible… Its probably even happened a bunch of times…
BUT in this case i dont think it is important who he has coached… You see If your prinicples/methods do not stand up to scrutiny you need something else to verify that your ideas work… If someone effectively says “I dont care about the literature Im an in the trenches guy. I have experience. I actually work with athletes. My prinicples may not stand up to scientific scrutiny but they work.”
The only thing thing that I can think of to verify success is the results of his coaching… and someone proves that by revealing who they have coached…
[quote]Chris Aus wrote:
ChrisKing wrote:
doogie wrote:
slimjim wrote:
Maybe he is wrong, maybe he’s right. Sitting here expounding this study or that study won’t prove anything to anyone but yourself.
Naming athletes he has worked with would prove a lot.
What would this prove?
You know what I actually agree with this… It may not prove too much at all… Sure a coach might come across a single freak of nature. Then ride the name and have other freaks of nature come and be coached by him… So yeah its entirely possible… Its probably even happened a bunch of times…
BUT in this case i dont think it is important who he has coached… You see If your prinicples/methods do not stand up to scrutiny you need something else to verify that your ideas work… If someone effectively says “I dont care about the literature Im an in the trenches guy. I have experience. I actually work with athletes. My prinicples may not stand up to scientific scrutiny but they work.”
The only thing thing that I can think of to verify success is the results of his coaching… and someone proves that by revealing who they have coached… [/quote]
That’s what I shoulda said.
[quote]Cupcake wrote:
boondoc holiday wrote:
sweety (cup and vroom) you don’t have to read this thread…
You ain’t the boss a’ me.
Sorry if my post didn’t piss fuel on your flaming drama that warms you so. I will try to do better here:
Co-Co Puffs are overated!
true, fruity pebbles are way better.
Venus is the better looking Williams sister!
false, she just looks less intimidating.
Timmy P stole my mothers panties!
true…uhhhh…
John Davies is my ex-wife!
really?? i guess poor communication skills on her part was the problem.
Brady’s arm was NOT moving forward!
true. but peyton’s way better.
How can you POSSIBLY insist that The Aviator should of won?!
what’s the aviator?!
Richard Gere is the majority owner of a Gerbil ranch, what does that tell you!!!
then he must be the dealer to all the felcher weathermen in every city in america.
I was TOO only scratching when you surprised me in my room!
horse feathers.
…and finally - - - -
She never told me that she was your mother!
that’s my favorite excuse.
See Boon, I was merely commenting on the futility of the arguments and making an observation that the well intentioned search for a final opinion on Davies was…futile. I crack wise, you know that’s what I do, I mean if I was actually thinking that I was going to magically “solve” the debate or make you pick up your ball and go home to more productive tasks then I would have tried harder…I mean right after I smoothed out that pesky middle east thing.
If you want a opinion, then fine…here’s an opinion on the subject at hand:
John Davies does a lot of things that people don’t like and he doesn’t seem to give a shit. His life moves on and does not depend on the approval of internet forums or his peers. I happen to think that for some bright people (Chris Aus/BB and some names that are new to me etc…) to spend any kind of serious effort in raging debate about it seems rather silly when you could pick up a phone and call John Davies, speak to him in person and ask him all the questions you would like.
Really, we could better spend our time arguing about nipple preference, prince alberts and wether or not it’s true that if you rub an empty bottle of GROW at the stroke of midnight on Halloween Timmy P shows up in a thong, bunny slippers and curlers to grant you three wishes.
Of course all three wishes have to include him, a midget named “Luscious” and a 50 pound bag of carrots but three nonetheless.
“Now where did I put that empty bottle of GROW?”
~ To be heard in too many homes this Hallows eve[/quote]
"see there you go. just when i think you can’t possibly do anything worse…you go and…
totally redeem yourself!" thanks man, hugs.
I just read all of the posts on this thread, and none of you who questioned Davies’ methods have given your evidence supporting your claims. You’ve demanded his, but offered none of your own.
I’m not “calling you out”-most of you are a lot smarter than I am on this subject, but the burden of proof lies with you since you are the ones speaking out against his theories. Singling out one or two exercises employed by his training scheme does not do it justice. I’m slow, so if you’re willing to take the time, spell it out for me.
Please don’t reference CT or Cressey’s threads, give me some of your original evidence-empirical, anecdotal, or otherwise. I’d prefer this be a discussion rather than you telling me how stupid and wrong he is, or how you’re standing up for liberty and justice everywhere.
[quote]seanc wrote:
Fuck “elite”.
Everytime someone says that I want to scream fuck you!
Who cares about the “elite athletes”.
Am I the only one that thinks that people who have nothing to do but train, and get paid to do it, has little or nothing to do with what “average joe” who has a 40 hour a week job and 10 hour a week commnute has to do?
I could give a fuck about someone that works with only teams.
Show me a guy that can take normal people and consistently generate massive positive changes, and I am impressed.[/quote]
You want us to show you a guy that can take normal people and consistantly generate massive positive changes? How about a guy who can take a group of no name kids (for arguments sake, lets call this group the Optimists) and turn more than a few of them into Olympic finalists and world record setters?
As much as I’d like to sit on the fence with Chris Shugart, I thought I’d just point out that Charlie Francis isn’t some one shot wonder who produced Ben Johnson and then became Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind.
200 posts and still none of the renegade brigade can list what Davies brings to the table.
if running people into the ground with gpp work is somehow revolutionary why the hell arent the idiot trainers who work at my gym writing articles for T-Mag?
my year 8 pe teacher had us do circuits of bw exercises till we collapsed does that make him an in the trenches type of guy as well?
If the hullaballoo surrounding the claims made by Davies or about Davies arent going to be the focus of this ‘debate’ can someone somewhere please list what is so revolutionary/special/innovative/unique/smooth & silky about the renegade system
Okay, I just reviewed about all of the articles Davies posted on here and could not find one that advocated lifting protocols that could be deemed “overtraining” except by someone with really poor recovery.
A couple examples:
Fat to Fire: 3 sets of six lifts performed as supersets of 6 reps each.
total reps:108
Lifting is done 3 days a week with GPP consisting of at most 20 minutes a morning on three off days.
Nitro Squat:
You determine upper body workouts and volume interspersed with 3 days of legs. This is a leg specific workout so upper body should be done as maintenance in theory.
Protocols:
8 sets of main lift(back squat, front squat, etc) 4 done at 35% intensity for 4 reps, and 4 done at 70-80% for 2 reps.
Glut Ham raise 3 sets of 4
Waiters Bow 3 sets of 4
total reps:48
You’ll have to show me a workout where he advocates overtraining. I think a lot of you have read Coach X’s stuff on Elitefts and are taking it at face value instead of reading the workouts yourself and coming to your own conclusion.
That said, I have only used one of Davies’ workouts, the Bodybuilding workout he posted a while back, and I hesitate to throw this out as evidence since I was deployed to Iraq and lacking proper nutrition as well as rest. Though I did make significant gains in the lifts and improved my overall fitness; as evidence for this I can only use my 2-mile run time dropping from 11:53 to 11:24 over the course of the 2 months I used this program. I wouldn’t mention it, but I don’t think you guys will take,“I felt better while performing physical activities and the workout was fun,” and this is the only test I had available there.
Lastly, one example of “what he brings to the table” is the Bear. I’ve read a few posts where people asked if they could only do one lift, what would be most beneficial. How about one that includes four complex movements?
points at cupcake he’s smart.
Now can we all please shut up and get back to lifting?
Slim Jim I have read and appreciate your posts.
I will adress the points if I can.
Firstly this
really is a big call… I have already said that n=1(or any small number) means nothing, so in a way im contradicting myself by giving n=1 anecdotes even if it does support what im saying… Having said that there is some value to case studies…
I will post some quotes from others re: their experiences with Renegade though… I will need their permission however. So it might take a day or two.
Also it would be difficult for anyone to come up with “original”… I wasnt even aware that CT or Eric had original data (although Eric will have some original data soon I think…).
Have you read Javorek’s stuff? Similar isnt it?
Still I will do my best, give me a bit of time though, I actually have stuff to do today
If you could only do one lift, in my opinion it should be clean & jerks.
The Javorek Complex forces you to use weights that are too light to be beneficial for strength/power/bodybuilding, and as Christian Thibaudeau explained in an earlier discussion, weights are probably less than ideal for interval work.
as chris said the bear is very similar to complexes used by Javorek (maybe a little too similar) and i seem to remember Pavel (or whoever ghost writes for him) mentioning the bear a year or so before Davies came on the scene - back during the old dragondoor forum days…
but lets for arguements sake look past that, and for arguements sake give him credit for the bear - the bear may be a ‘hard’ exercise - but does that by default make it a valuble exercise? for example:
is back squatting with a weight that you can easily snatch X amount of times going to have some sort of quantifiable carryover to some other aspect of your training?
or is it a cumlitive effect from the combination of 4 exercises into one make it more useful than those same exercises used alone?
does one need to be as competent with oly lifting technique when doing the bear as they would if the classic lifts were done alone?
I was always of the opinion that oly lifts were done primarily to increase RFD, the bear limits how much loading can be used and therefore limits RFD… so im guessing the bear is used as a CV conditioning tool… surely there are safer ways of achieving CV conditioning than using oly lifts while heavily fatigued
im interested to hear what people think about this, but regardless say we give Coach D credit for the bear. does he have anything else?