Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clarification on programming and a hypothetical

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post
    So, I think thi be a point of clarification. We have said that harder does not equal better, but not necessarily that the reciprocal, "easier", is better.

    Rather, better is better.

    Things that are hard aren't good or bad based on the amount of chutzpah one needs to complete it. The discussion about virtue, nobility, and religious parallels drawn to this stuff are distractions. You can still be a piece of shit human if you squat 405 x 5 x 5 at RPE 10. You may also be weaker than the guy who only does one set of 405 @ 8. Isn't that neat?
    Well said, doctor.

    If I recall correctly, the last BBL podcast I ever listened to, at one point the hosts agreed that EVEN IF IT IS NOT PRODUCTIVE, grinding out last NLP sets and reps were nonetheless very worthwhile because, in not so many words, it puts fuzz on your kiwis. Voluntary hardship, and all that. While I certainly see the value of acclimating yourself to handling very heavy weights/singles and the skills necessary in expressing that strength (practicing with specificity), I never understood how pursuing something that gets you nowhere (or sends you backwards) suddenly means it gets you somewhere....because it’s hard.

    Hell, why not dig a 6 foot hole in their backyards using teaspoons? Hey, it’d be hard! And it’s voluntary! Kiwis. Fuzz.

    As you say, better is better. Work hard productively, and we can have our cake and eat it too.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by sjalbrec View Post
      i'm very grateful the BBM team is working out some optimal programming and i can simply enjoy the benefits. it has been very educational to be able to watch the process as you refine your approach in a public way (from watching SS and Alan Thrall separately to now seeing you come together under BBM).

      i guess my question is "why now, why hasn't this been figured out already?" I mean, there have been very strong power-lifters and olymic weightlifting for decades and decades. a lot of people have already figured this stuff out. where is that knowledge? Do those elite coaches keep their wisdom as proprietary?

      what the discussion in this thread reinforces for me is that the only way to get close to your genetic strength potential is to work individually with a coach. i guess what's new here is that BBM is MD's trying to create advanced programming for the masses.
      Well stated. All I've figured out from this last year of programming debate is that there are many ways to skin a cat for productive programming. Your never gonna run the most optimal programming no matter who designed it, and nobody has everything figured out. If your not gonna hire a coach, trial and error and design of your own programming is the best approach in my opinion.

      Comment


      • #18
        I just don't get it.

        Like I just got done watching the pain science podcast 30 minutes ago and you say that high intensity causes more fatigue, that over-fatigue causes pain, and to get the pain down you need to decrease intensity.....

        But when I say things like "Intensity causes more fatigue" on this board, I get pushback with
        How are you quantifying "fatigue"? Hell, how are you defining it? I don't know if we're even using the term in the same manner, certainly not using the definition we provided in the podcast
        What's it going to be? It can't be both.


        Or I read in response to the claim that 'loads 70-100% were equally sufficient for hypertrophy purposes'
        This is not something we have said. Rather, we have explicitly stated the opposite when discussing neuromuscular development.
        But I can literally link you a time stamp in the programming podcast where you do say this. In fact, you say loads down to 65% are sufficiently above threshhold.

        So you explicitly stated the opposite when discussing meuromuscular development......
        And not 3 lines down when talking about the types of nueromuscular gains driven by high intensity
        We didn't say this either and this depends on context.
        Again, It can't be both.


        There are about 3 or 4 other things In that response I can link to in the podcasts where there are contradictions but I don't want to come across as overly combative.

        We cannot reduce programming to simplistic sound bytes and still be correct.
        And here I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding of exactly what It is I am doing here. I am not trying to flesh out or construct an entire model, I am trying to point out issues with it. I'm trying to point out inconsistencies in the model and discourse around it. I'm trying to flesh out and thoroughly understand the reasoning behind each part. When I try to point out very articulately, particularly, and specifically the issues I'm seeing, it's not to attack and tear down but to explore and make better. Systems analysis is my jam. Errors and contradictions stick out to me. I'm trying to help, believe it or not.

        The bobbing and weaving gets us nowhere though. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Enthusiast View Post
          I just don't get it.

          Like I just got done watching the pain science podcast 30 minutes ago and you say that high intensity causes more fatigue, that over-fatigue causes pain, and to get the pain down you need to decrease intensity.....

          But when I say things like "Intensity causes more fatigue" on this board, I get pushback with

          What's it going to be? It can't be both.
          This is the problem with oversimplifying things, Enthusiast. You can't say something like 100% causes more fatigue than 70% because that's not enough information to make that claim. If you had said something like 100% x 1 rep is more fatiguing than 70% x 1 rep for the same exercise then sure, but you have to clarify when speaking in absolutes.

          Originally posted by Enthusiast View Post
          Or I read in response to the claim that 'loads 70-100% were equally sufficient for hypertrophy purposes'
          Nope, because you can't do enough volume with 100%.

          Originally posted by Enthusiast View Post
          But I can literally link you a time stamp in the programming podcast where you do say this. In fact, you say loads down to 65% are sufficiently above threshhold.
          Nope. We said that the hypertrophy outcomes were the same between 60-90% or 70-90% when volume is comparable or even 30-90% if volume is higher(depends on which podcast).

          Originally posted by Enthusiast View Post
          So you explicitly stated the opposite when discussing meuromuscular development......
          And not 3 lines down when talking about the types of nueromuscular gains driven by high intensity
          Again, It can't be both.
          Dude, what are you even talking about? We make a very strong point to say that we need to develop hypertrophy and that this can be done across a wide range of intensities. Then we discuss the neuromuscular contribution requiring high intensities, e.g 70-85% will suffice for volume work.

          I'm not sure why you're upset or saying things we didn't say, but I will need you to pose more specific questions if you'd like more specific answers.

          There are about 3 or 4 other things In that response I can link to in the podcasts where there are contradictions but I don't want to come across as overly combative.
          I would like you link 1 think that we said in the podcast that I am contradicting. Please quote it and timestamp it for posterity.


          Originally posted by Enthusiast View Post
          And here I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding of exactly what It is I am doing here. I am not trying to flesh out or construct an entire model, I am trying to point out issues with it. I'm trying to point out inconsistencies in the model and discourse around it. I'm trying to flesh out and thoroughly understand the reasoning behind each part. When I try to point out very articulately, particularly, and specifically the issues I'm seeing, it's not to attack and tear down but to explore and make better. Systems analysis is my jam. Errors and contradictions stick out to me. I'm trying to help, believe it or not.

          The bobbing and weaving gets us nowhere though. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
          Please point out the contradictions. If you are correct, I will send you 100 dollars. If you are incorrect, you have to shave your head. In the event your head is already shaved, I will send you a pink tutu and you need to take a picture of yourself in it with the accompanying barbell medicine t shirt on.
          Barbell Medicine "With you from bench to bedside"
          ///Website /// Instagram /// Peri™ Rx /// Whey Rx /// Barbell Medicine Podcast/// Newsletter /// Seminars ///

          Comment


          • #20
            Oh, I see where the tragic disconnect in our conversation is. Now your responses make a lot more sense to me. You are flipping my generalizations into absolutisms, and arguing against them. That's a bit of strawman'ing. Whenever I'm stating a principle(which you agree with), and you bring up some contextual nuance or exception to the principle, It throws me for a loop and makes it look like you are arguing against yourself. That's why it looks like contradiction to me. I see what's happening now.

            When I make statements about principles, they aren't absolutes. They are more like generalizations.

            >Nope, because you can't do enough volume with 100%

            I believe the exact wording was "Over a certain threshold" . You are agreeing with me in principle, but stating you are disagreeing it isn't the case 100% of the time in all contexts.

            >Nope. We said that the hypertrophy outcomes were the same between 60-90% or 70-90% when volume is comparable or even 30-90% if volume is higher(depends on which podcast).

            Again, you are saying nope, and agreeing with me. Nuance does not invalidate principles.

            > Then we discuss the neuromuscular contribution requiring high intensities,

            When I say, higher intensities provide mostly neuromuscular improvements, you disagree. Here I am again, stating a principle, WHICH YOU AGREE WITH, and you are disagreeing with me.

            >Please point out the contradictions. If you are correct, I will send you 100 dollars. If you are incorrect, you have to shave your head. In the event your head is already shaved, I will send you a pink tutu and you need to take a picture of yourself in it with the accompanying barbell medicine t shirt on.

            For some odd reason, you want to invalidate the principles of your own model with nuance(that's not how principles work), instead of acknowledging the issues I was pointing out in the very beginning of this thread.. which delt with long term programming structures being at odds with some of the principles laid out at bbm.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Enthusiast View Post
              Oh, I see where the tragic disconnect in our conversation is. Now your responses make a lot more sense to me. You are flipping my generalizations into absolutisms, and arguing against them. That's a bit of strawman'ing. Whenever I'm stating a principle(which you agree with), and you bring up some contextual nuance or exception to the principle, It throws me for a loop and makes it look like you are arguing against yourself. That's why it looks like contradiction to me. I see what's happening now.
              Yea I'd argue it's not a strawman at all, as I don't know you, your programming thoughts, or anything else besides what is written here, you know?

              When I make statements about principles, they aren't absolutes. They are more like generalizations.

              >Nope, because you can't do enough volume with 100%

              I believe the exact wording was "Over a certain threshold" . You are agreeing with me in principle, but stating you are disagreeing it isn't the case 100% of the time in all contexts.
              Well, yes- I disagree that you can't say 70 and 100% of 1RM are equivalent for hypertrophy.

              Again, you are saying nope, and agreeing with me. Nuance does not invalidate principles.
              I am not agreeing with you. I am disagreeing with you. The terminology must be more precise.

              Earlier in this thread you accused me of not brining enough detail or effort in to the responses I was given. I have provided more detail and now you're saying, "You know what I'm saying even though I didn't say it."

              No. I don't know what you're saying. I just know that based on multiple statements you are misrepresenting our stance on this and this may be why you are saying we are contradicting ourselves when we are . not, in fact.

              When I say, higher intensities provide mostly neuromuscular improvements, you disagree. Here I am again, stating a principle, WHICH YOU AGREE WITH, and you are disagreeing with me.
              Look man, a principle is only a principle if it includes enough context to actually be meaningful.

              You saying, high intensity is mostly neuromuscular improvements without defining high intensity. The literature discusses "high intensity" as that being >60%. I wouldn't agree that with that definition high intensity is mostly neuromuscular. I would agree 85% of 1RM for a set of 3-5 produces a greater neuromuscular improvement than 70% of 1RM for a set of 3-5, but the hypertrophy response is about the same between the two so....I can't really agree with you, can I?

              For some odd reason, you want to invalidate the principles of your own model with nuance(that's not how principles work), instead of acknowledging the issues I was pointing out in the very beginning of this thread.. which delt with long term programming structures being at odds with some of the principles laid out at bbm.
              I am not invalidating anything. I am simply saying that your misunderstanding is due to not listening closely enough to the podcasts to be able to recapitulate what we're saying. I understand that podcasts have some drawbacks for conveying ideas and information in that they are usually long form, require multiple listens, and note taking- usually. That said, you have not produced a contradictory statement by us. Our programming structures are not at odds and I described why.

              It is frustrating that you're wanting to argue without being specific. I can only tolerate that for so long.
              Barbell Medicine "With you from bench to bedside"
              ///Website /// Instagram /// Peri™ Rx /// Whey Rx /// Barbell Medicine Podcast/// Newsletter /// Seminars ///

              Comment


              • wilo
                wilo commented
                Editing a comment
                I think you've already gone above and beyond in terms of patience, tbh. The ancient Indians had a term for arguments of the kinds (plural) presented by Enthusiast -- they called it "eel-wriggling" That said, I've learned a few things and improved my own understanding from your responses, and perhaps others have too (there are some things that it can take a while to get your head around), so thanks

            • #22
              I just pulled up the thread again. I didn't realize it had been so active in the last week.

              I don't really have too much to add - only that I know there are inherent challenges in trying to prescribe a training program for the masses when there are individual 'nuances' that HAVE to be addressed to some extent. Doing so in as evidenced based a way as possible is why I like your programming and podcasts so much. So, thank you for taking the time to go into as much detail as possible in an online forum.

              Comment

              Working...
              X