|
2009/01/04, 01:52 PM
Basically my question is if you have encountered this person on other forums and what your views are of him?
His basic core of beliefs are : slow training(slowburn), machines only, randomized exercise selection for daily workouts, bashing freeweights based on being dangerous and ego boosting,
he posts on bodybuilding, seriousstrength, crossfit, sherdog(banned), and some others.
I disagree with his methods but I want some other perspectives from you guys here.
|
|
|
|
2009/01/04, 10:08 PM
Without looking at his posts at all, judging by what you stated above (that this person uses only machines and thinks freeweights are dangerous), then I can tell you straight-up that he's full of crap. Have you ever gone to a powerlifting meet, strongman competition, or watched the Olympics where they're only using machines? There's a reason for that...
--------------
--JBennett
"I've up-ed my intensity.... now up yours!"
"Pain is only weakness leaving the body."
"Never think of how weak you are; think of how strong you're going to be."
|
|
2009/03/02, 09:34 AM
Hi,
I'll tell you my core of beliefs, rather than guesses coming from people far removed from the topic. I find that what they dare not tell you is that I do not say machines only, or randomized selection only, or SuperSlow only. Strawmen anyone?
I personally enjoy those things, and favor those things the majority of the time, so will obviously(?) post about them, but at times I also do some freeweight exercises, non-randomized routines, as well as Ivanko SuperGripper exercise, and "cardio" on various equipment.
What the human race *knows* is that some form of randomization has been and continues to be used in non-exercise fields successfully (Science, the biggie), and is used at times in exercise by CrossFit with their hopper model and "constantly varied" methods, Dan John, Coach DOS, Ross Training, users of various reaction balls, and many more.
My original work and spreadsheet were in fact *in response* to an exerciser requesting a way to randomized their exercises to help prevent boredom and help overcome a plateau. Those are not the only uses of the randomization tool in exercise, however, but two of the most obvious.
Thanks,
Justin
http://www.statisticool.com
|
|
2009/03/03, 01:14 PM
============
Quoting from statisticool:
What the human race *knows* is that some form of randomization has been and continues to be used in non-exercise fields successfully (Science, the biggie), and is used at times in exercise by CrossFit with their hopper model and "constantly varied" methods, Dan John, Coach DOS, Ross Training, users of various reaction balls, and many more.
=============
What successful strength coaches *know* is that programming and organization of training is not random, but a systematic application of training load with specific purpose.
A trainee does not work through a plateau with a random approach. It is done with specific application of training stimulus known to be effective.
|
|
2009/03/03, 06:01 PM
I think that some people spend too much time on the internet.
|
|
2009/03/03, 09:18 PM
============
Quoting from merrillj:
1) What successful strength coaches *know* is that programming and organization of training is not random, but a systematic application of training load with specific purpose.
2) A trainee does not work through a plateau with a random approach.
=============
1) For some reason you're trying to make this a "vs." situation. This is one of the "strawmen" that I referred to earlier. The method is, of course, just another tool in the toolkit, one that was already being done in a limited way by dice and decks of cards.
With that said, you'd need to define what you mean by "successful strength coaches" for your comment to approach relevancy. I listed specific people.
The concepts "systematic application" and "random" are not as mutually exclusive as you're implying if you know about probability distributions. You remember the bell curve? That has a structure in terms of mean and variance, an actual formula, but it is a random variable. All sorts of systematic properties can be listed about it.
So random isn't 'no systematic-ness' as you're implying, but carefully chosen probabilities to in fact give some purpose while at the same time giving some benefits that a deterministic workout cannot. On the other side of the coin, deterministic workouts give things randomized ones cannot.
2) All random in this sense means is an agent of variability, of change. Obviously if what you're doing isn't working, you have to make some change. You left out the part that my original work and spreadsheet were in fact in response to an exerciser requesting a way to randomized their exercises to help prevent boredom and *help overcome a plateau*. If you are claiming that that exerciser did not in fact request this to help overcome their plateau, I'm not sure you're in a position to know since the experience happened to me.
Remember, that as applied to strength training, weights (as in lbs), list of possible exercises, lifting method, training frequency, goals, etc., would still be non-random. The only thing being randomized, in this specific setting that I am referring to, is the exercise *selection*, and even those have probabilities that can and should be modified to suit the exerciser's goals, and can be done down to the day.
Boiled down, it is simply a way to chose n things from a larger list of N, while taking the user's preferences into account.
But the general approach has been already applied to not just strength training, but also conditioning, drills, etc. I give some examples of these on my webpage.
Cheers,
Justin
|
|
2009/03/04, 04:42 AM
Not interested in further discussion. Best of luck to you Justin.
|
|
2009/03/04, 10:05 AM
2 months too late.
You also seem to have changed your tune quite a bit. Whatever floats your boat however.
|
