T-Nation is a great site, you can argue (within reason) with the mods without getting banned.
The open environment that allows different opinions makes this one of the ultimate places to get information and correspond with other lifters.
Keep up the good work guys!!
[quote]doogie wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Also, there is seemingly no shortage of individuals who post on here who have experience with Davies’ programs – working directly from him, not just articles on T-mag – who go to bat for him and brag about the results they’ve achieved. It would seem anecdotal evidence from them would suffice if it’s anecdotal evidence you want.
Are any of these people world class athletes? Even the crappy trainers at my local gym get good results with the sheep they train. There is a world of difference in getting Joe Bob (who sits on his ass reading T-mag all day) in shape and training a professional athlete.
[/quote]
Off the top of my head, I’ve seen posts from those claiming to be collegiate athletes and those trying to become professional athletes. I’d think that would more than satisfy any effect of newbie (or long-layoff) gains.
Granted, I don’t know those people, and haven’t seen them. However, if you were going to tell me all the T-Nation posts I’ve seen over the past couple of years – including on the old “Renegade” forum (or whatever it was called) – were from people who were just making stuff up, either Coach Davies produced one amazing propaganda conspiracy or you’re a tad paranoid.
Cupcake was right though – I was talking about the value of anecdotal evidence because you aren’t going to prove anything on this one way or another. Showing me the names of amazing pro clients I recognize might indicate training success, or it might indicate a really good job of salesmanship to successful people – or both, plus more. There are so many factors that go into creating success – including luck (or randomness, if you prefer statistical terms, or stuff we just haven’t figured out how to measure yet, if you prefer a scientific approach) – that I don’t give any particular names all that much credence.
Once again though, I don’t have a dog in the fight. I’m not an elite athlete anyway, just a lawyer who wants to “look great nekkid” and be generally muscular, athletic and healthy.
I just don’t understand the personal attacks levelled at Davies.
[quote]basementD wrote:
The open environment that allows different opinions makes this one of the ultimate places to get information and correspond with other lifters.
[/quote]
smacks self in forehead.
I am sure Davies gets great results, especially for certain sports. The only problem I see is that alot of his empirical backup for his points seems to consist of “be a renegade!”. I always wondered how much these programs simply act as a sorting mechanism. Those with great genetics and excellent recovery abilities obviously excell while those with less impressive abilities develop lagging colds and actually experience a regression in abilities.
All I do know is that Coach D was one of the most accessable training assets this website had along with CT but now he is no longer here.
“Renegade” forum (or whatever it was called)… Come on BB you’ve been here just as long as I have and I clearly remember the renegade forums. And you’re loads smarter than I am so there’s no excuse in deflating what the renegade forums were with a phrase like “whatever it was called”
The subject should be layed to rest, end of thread if you will… This thing is worse than the steroid debate in baseball. No one will be able to prove anything and we shouldn’t waste our time throwing salvo’s back and forth over battle lines that are so murkily drawn…
I’m a firm believer in Coach D. I still do the one armed barbell snatch, and the indo balance board is something I’ve used in preparation for each snowboarding season, especially after my ACL reconstruction.
I guess I’ve said my Peace.
GAINER
elevation:
I wasn’t being trite. I just didn’t recall if the exact name of the Forum was “Renegade Forum” or some other derivative other title that included a derivation of the word “renegade” and some other word (for instance, I think Christian’s forum was “Lair of the Ice Dog”, which does not include the word “forum”).
[quote]doogie wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Also, there is seemingly no shortage of individuals who post on here who have experience with Davies’ programs – working directly from him, not just articles on T-mag – who go to bat for him and brag about the results they’ve achieved. It would seem anecdotal evidence from them would suffice if it’s anecdotal evidence you want.
Are any of these people world class athletes? Even the crappy trainers at my local gym get good results with the sheep they train. There is a world of difference in getting Joe Bob (who sits on his ass reading T-mag all day) in shape and training a professional athlete.
[/quote]
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]twistedsteel wrote:
Chris Aus wrote:
… I can do ALL of those tests and am relatively uncoordinated, also I can not run fast or jump high, or do anything really (to a high level) …
Could it be because you are a troll?
Seriously man, get a life. [/quote]
I meant im not im not a professional athlete, my strength power and endurance are fine though…
As for trolling i been at this site for 5+ years, never been in a disagreement to this extent before though…
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.
[quote]diggers04 wrote:
Chris Aus wrote:
Here is a quote from a Davies article… Tell me honestly what you think?
The one-arm pull-up is a tremendous test of upper body strength. However, well beyond the ability to eccentrically perform a one-arm pull-up is the ability to control the concentric lowering of your body.
Now, sinse when is concentric the lowering part?
Also sinse when is the lowering part the harder part?
Has Davies ever done a one arm chin? How would he know if he hasnt?
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]
Try pulling yourself up with one arm and tell me which is harder. He didnt compare a two hand concentric with a one hand eccentric he specifically said the one hand eccentric is harder than the one arm concentric…
Try them and let me know what your findings are…
Dear Mr. Chris Aus:
I respect your position and your tenacity.
I don’t agree with you, and you’ll never make me agree with you. Even if you manage to show me all kinds of evidence I’ll never agree with you .
I’m never going to change your mind either. Neither is anyone else.
At this point, I think the whole thing has gotten completely out of hand, and I wonder if we might agree to just let the thread die?
Thanks,
-T.
I don’t see anyone going out and discussing what I put up earlier, what exactly is it that you “Davies” lovers find great? I don’t have a problem with the man himself, I could care less if Charlie Francis eats donuts, and I really don’t think it’s Charles Staley’s job to reference his kindergarten teacher everytime he uses a number. I don’t care about those arguments, I’d hope that if Davies is such a faithful man that he didn’t do the alleged things, in that case I’m “on his side.”
As for the Cressey thing, yeah, I like Eric a lot, enjoy his articles, he’s been a big help, and I do agree he went about attacking Davies a lil wrong, but Davies did and does nothing to dispute those wondering about why he does what he does!
I don’t care if he’s been training for 40 years, usually smart coaches have reasons for doing the things they do, and he can never tell you a reason. He just blah, blah, blahs about the good old days, how this generation can’t work hard, etc and calls it an article. Look at his site…that’s all he ever really does, sometimes his contributors have good stuff, but him, not really. I love T-Nation, and I’m not a troll, but for all the years I’ve been training I’ve gotten VERY few useful nuggets from John Davies. Once again, he’s about the only contributor I don’t look forward to reading from…just how many of you guys got stronger or “looked better nekkid” from his junk training ideas or the 4 Renegade Challenges?
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
I don’t agree with you, and you’ll never make me agree with you. Even if you manage to show me all kinds of evidence I’ll never agree with you .
[/quote]
Way to be open-minded.
Wasn’t there a quote somewhere on this site that said:
“In God We Trust. From You, We Want the Data.” or something like that.
Does that help sum up the, I trust him and that’s all that matters debate.
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]Joe Weider wrote:
Dear Mr. Chris Aus:
I respect your position and your tenacity.
I don’t agree with you, and you’ll never make me agree with you. Even if you manage to show me all kinds of evidence I’ll never agree with you .
I’m never going to change your mind either. Neither is anyone else.
At this point, I think the whole thing has gotten completely out of hand, and I wonder if we might agree to just let the thread die?
Thanks,
-T.[/quote]
So basically youre saying I dont care about the facts Im going to believe what I want to believe no matter what. If Fifa, Diego and Diegos agent all come outand say hed never been coached by Davies I still will believe whatever I feel like…
If that is the case then you are correct we have no business discussing anything…
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Naming athletes he has worked with would prove a lot.
well, basically I kind of thought this thread was becoming tiresome and was wasting a lot of time and bandwidth that could be better used. I was trying to offer a graceful way out for everyone. Since you don’t want it–and someone even decided that it needed to be mocked–when I clearly put in the little ‘grin’ symbol, fuck ya then.
Have fun with the mistrust and the hate.
It only hurts you in the long run.
[quote]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.[/quote]
I meant I think it’s actually a bad idea from a marketing perspective – big names attract attention.
[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]
Its not about science and studies proving anything… Its about a lack of evidence (anecdotal or empirical or double blind placebo controlled 
)… Its about using very small samples to prove that something exists. Lonnie was spot on in his post. N=1 doesnt mean a whole lot… Its about a lack of reproducability. Its about individuals by themselves having extremly poor ability to differentiate between correlation and causation without carefully looking at the data (ie doing a study… studies dont have to be done in a lab they can be retrospective)…
Why is everyone talking about lab studies anyway? When the Russians present their data the studies were done in the gym, not a chemistry lab…
Doing powercleans on a swiss ball may sell books and definetly looks cool but it wont make you better at sport.
However those capable of doing powercleans while standing on a swissball may be better athletes… Now if someone sees all the good athletes can stand on a ball does they can very concievably think… “Wow teaching someone to stand on a ball will make them a better athlete!”
When you carefully watch for results etc (ie study it) you find it not to be true.
Studies come in all shapes and sizes they are not necasserily done in a lab, or double blind placebo controlled, and are an absolute necessity to learning…