The fact any of you think that Louie would have any sort of attacks other than “self-destruct” or “confuse” means you haven’t been paying attention.
9 Likes
Or repetitive attach
1 Like
How did you make it through college? Nearly every paper is written in that style. I always used to wince: Eric Boobface tells us that people breathe (Boobface, 2016)
Because I had to WRITE those papers rather than read them.
1 Like
4 Likes
I feel personally attacked by this 
I just picked a name at random. Although it probably came from me thinking through a list of coaches who “clearly don’t know their shit” according to our favourite firestarter.
1 Like
I think PC might shy away from putting shit on Greg because Greg still has a decent physique and is still going 700/500/700…
1 Like
Just imagine how big and strong he could be with all this brand new information though…
1 Like
Less?
One of Greg’s comments that really sticks in my mind is ‘remember, you can get good doing incorrect shit too’.
I still think PC delivers good information on a range of subjects, but his whole new doctrine of this is the only way to do it is flat out dumb and something anyone with an iota of experience knows to be bullshit. That kind of highlights the people he’s trying to reach.
4 Likes
Agreed. What he says works, does indeed work. The problem is when he says it’s the only way that works.
4 Likes
All this talk reminds me how tired I am of all the drama bullishit among internet coaches.
Let your body of work speak for itself.
3 Likes
Honestly, whenever this gets brought up, I just about have an aneurysm. I saw some geniuses bringing it up on the 5/3/1 thread too. “Well these world champions train this way and it goes against the effective reps thing” “Just because they’re world champions doesn’t mean they’re training right”
OMFG yes it f**king does. That’s how you determine who is doing it right: the person who wins.
I have a buddy of mine that bowls backwards. And not like granny style between the legs backwards: legit faces the wrong way and throws the ball behind himself. He started doing it when he was 21 (and consequently, fairly inebriated at a bowling alley), and after over a decade of doing it, he bowls better BACKWARDS than forwards. Some chucklehead will clearly observe that he’s “not doing it right” except for the fact my friend is throwing strikes doing this.
Only on the internet are we going to be so stupid that we don’t factor in success when determining if something is effective.
8 Likes
But m-m-m-muh science!
I was part of that discussion. Only thing I said was that there are successful lifters who use high volume. Can’t go into “is it correct training or not”, since I’m not scientist in that scene. I guess the results speak for themselves.
And yes, many of them are genetically gifted. Would the approach work for normal individual? There is only one way to know, right?
1 Like
But also remember: steroids are magic. Because instead of making the most effective way to train even MORE effective, they make it that less effective ways become more effective than the most effective ways.
2 Likes
The thing that people gloss over is the rule of individual difference in training. If memory servers the late great Fred
Hatfield mentioned it on occasion.
2 Likes
Shame Fred spent all those years training wrong.
3 Likes
Wendler has said that your personality and life situation should dictate your training program. It kind of goes there too.
He’s is not actually alone in this either. People tend to get lost with search of the holy grail.
People are so worried that even when they are making progress, either with regards to strength or hypertrophy that there is something that they are missing out on that’d allow them to progress even faster. And, when it comes to looking at successful people that are doing something that flies in the face of what you’d expect to be working best you can always incorporate the notion of potential, i.e. could they be stronger/bigger if they only just…
1 Like
Something that unfortunately rarely gets published in the exercise science literature.
Say you have two groups and you are comparing different training styles, lets say one is high volume and the other HIT.
They will report that on average the high volume group gained 5lb over the 12 week study, and the HIT group gained on average 6lb. A reader will go over that and conclude that HIT must be better.
What they wont look at, and is often not explicitly reported, is that the high volume group might have all gained 5lb each, where in the HIT group, half of the group might have gained 12lb each, and the other half of the group might have gained nothing whatsoever.
These are exaggerated and hypothetical examples, but within every study there is typically a huge amount more variance between individual participants than people would expect for pretty standard protocols, and the variance between individuals can be larger than the average effect.
If you studied standard deviations of the protocols you might get some insight, but that requires more reading than most people do on a study and is often not pointed out in the abstract or discussion, and when those variances are present within both groups it isn’t a defining factor anyway.
3 Likes