“‘Remarkably, we found that individuals with higher task-relevant variability at baseline learned faster than those with lower baseline variability and that tasks associated with higher baseline variability in task-relevant dimensions elicited faster learning. Interestingly, we found that neither the inter-individual nor the inter-task effects of variability were specific to reward-based learning, as we also observed them in an error-based force-field adaptation paradigm. Taken together these results suggest a general principle whereby increased variability enables faster learning.’
If anything, this study tells us that a person with more total variability when learning a movement will achieve the desired outcome (task) faster than others with forced movement constriction. Even more intriguing, variability likely provides alternative avenues of completing a movement via the exploitation aspect of motor learning.”
The original logic–as we know fails (#barakifanboi)–is that by keeping the lifter exposed to a very small set of exercises early on, she will become more proficient sooner in those lifts; it’s “illogical” to think that one would get better at P by doing X, Y, and Z, but empirically this appears to be the case. The above is from the latest (fantastic) article by Dr. Ray. Is this an argument for introducing variability within a lifter’s “career” sooner rather than later, potentially even during the novice phase? My own thoughts are 1) the novice phase is so short any ways it probably doesn’t matter all that much, so 2) add it or don’t add it based on a case by case basis vis a vis the individual needs of the lifter. Would this be in line with the doctor’s/coaches thinking? Or, are you convinced that variability should definitely be added as soon as possible (ie novice phase)?
The main lifts are just not that complicated, which may actually create an issue where someone is “stuck” and more of the same lift doesn’t reveal the issue in a way that a similar, but different movement pattern might.
For example: it may be a struggle to figure out the arbitrary forward lean needed in any one type of squat, but learning to front, high bar and low bar, while focusing on midfoot balance in all of them might make it more obvious. Also it is likely that you’d be better at one of them which might enlighten you as to how to improve the others.
I could see someone making the argument that in the case of movement errors (relative to some model) all that are needed are the appropriate cues and that trying to solve the problem via exercise variation is just lazy coaching, just like I could see someone making the equally radical but opposite argument that exercise variation is what you need to fix movement errors. There’s truth in both argument, but there’s also naivety. I guess I’d just like to see a discussion of the times and places to use movement cues and exercise variation.
Also, “complicated” in this case is a relative term. There are physical ignoramuses for whom squatting and benching will be the most complicated physical task they’ve ever done. My question is, for those types of people, would introducing more variety, not less, be the more evidence-based approach?
I don’t really see how exercise variation fixes form issues for a particular moment, other than maybe practicing a specific range of motion for what would otherwise be a full movement, to hyper focus on a cue. Even then, practicing the cue in the context of full movement is necessary.