SSOC vs BBM? Why would you ever choose SSOC?

[KyleSchuant]

If pedantry and argumentativeness lead to bans, this will be a very quiet forum. There's a mod or two we could toss out, too. "Whatever so-and-so says must be wrong!"

Nobody who is actually asking or talking about training should be banned, however dumb or annoying we think they are.

[mgil]

If pedantry and argumentativeness lead to bans, this will be a very quiet forum. There's a mod or two we could toss out, too. "Whatever so-and-so says must be wrong!"

Nobody who is actually asking or talking about training should be banned, however dumb or annoying we think they are.

Yeah, again, that’s why he’s still active.

It’s good to have some form of devil’s advocate to help clarify arguments, but there has been posts that have been a bit off, although I tend to think some of that is also a language issue. In this particular case we are dealing with an engineering student, and I think the type of mind that makes a good engineer might not make a great coach given the system of chaos training can be when looking at the genpop.

In regards to the mods that could be tossed out, I think we’ve done okay considering the time involved compared to the pay...

[Testiclaw]

If pedantry and argumentativeness lead to bans, this will be a very quiet forum. There's a mod or two we could toss out, too. "Whatever so-and-so says must be wrong!"

Nobody who is actually asking or talking about training should be banned, however dumb or annoying we think they are.

It doesn't surprise me that you feel this way, especially when the person in question lacks any combination of education, knowledge, or experience to support his argumentative posts.

It's right up your alley.

[Travis]

If pedantry and argumentativeness lead to bans, this will be a very quiet forum. There's a mod or two we could toss out, too. "Whatever so-and-so says must be wrong!"

Nobody who is actually asking or talking about training should be banned, however dumb or annoying we think they are.

It doesn't surprise me that you feel this way, especially when the person in question lacks any combination of education, knowledge, or experience to support his argumentative posts.

It's right up your alley.

Uncle Mark, is that you?

[Manveer]

Nobody who is actually asking or talking about training should be banned, however dumb or annoying we think they are.

For people who are genuinely interested in a discussion, yes. For people who are just trying to provoke other members, no - that's trolling.

[Testiclaw]

If pedantry and argumentativeness lead to bans, this will be a very quiet forum. There's a mod or two we could toss out, too. "Whatever so-and-so says must be wrong!"

Nobody who is actually asking or talking about training should be banned, however dumb or annoying we think they are.

It doesn't surprise me that you feel this way, especially when the person in question lacks any combination of education, knowledge, or experience to support his argumentative posts.

It's right up your alley.

Uncle Mark, is that you?

I have way, way, WAY less than 41 years of experience.

So I'm a second-cousin Mark, at best.

[Travis]

Nobody who is actually asking or talking about training should be banned, however dumb or annoying we think they are.

For people who are genuinely interested in a discussion, yes. For people who are just trying to provoke other members, no - that's trolling.

That provoking leads to some dumbed downed conversation, which is beneficial to some of us not so smart people.

[Testiclaw]

Nobody who is actually asking or talking about training should be banned, however dumb or annoying we think they are.

For people who are genuinely interested in a discussion, yes. For people who are just trying to provoke other members, no - that's trolling.

That provoking leads to some dumbed downed conversation, which is beneficial to some of us not so smart people.

I agree...I just wish it was open and honest upfront. If something doesn't make sense, or, if people are talking about something while sharing similar assumptions or premises and a follower is lost, just ask.

The, "I don't train, or coach, and have no education in the area but you aren't convincing me that my ideas aren't better" schtick isn't too fun to sift through.

[stevan]

education

engineering

They teach us chaos in uni.

[Testiclaw]

education

engineering

They teach us chaos in uni.

I did a few years of mechanical engineering and applied mathematics...I don't think it did a lot for me when it comes to weightlifting.

And I don't think formal education is the only way to be "educated" in terms of strength sports, mind you, just that I was under the impression that you don't have much of a background in training and/or coaching.

Does that make sense?

[mgil]

education

engineering

They teach us chaos in uni.

Sure. How many dimensions? Are all variables independent?

As a dude actually doing science with real data, I can tell you that most of what you see in your university coursework, while very useful, is also very sanitized. Further, you look at systems in total, apply some nice closed form solutions, and then go from there.

When you’re dealing with people and performance training, a nice working model is to assume every person is a three dimensional “random walk” and you need to be three steps ahead of them. For extra fun, assume each dimension has its own unique PDF governing displacement in both angle and length.

[stevan]

education

engineering

They teach us chaos in uni.

I did a few years of mechanical engineering and applied mathematics...I don't think it did a lot for me when it comes to weightlifting.

And I don't think formal education is the only way to be "educated" in terms of strength sports, mind you, just that I was under the impression that you don't have much of a background in training and/or coaching.

Does that make sense?

I would never coach or advise anyone if I don't have experience doing that myself or with other people. And my posting history indicates that.

However, I don't see why experience would be necessary for sharing relevant evidence or experiences from other coaches working with real people. I think that complexity of a training process is overstated in these circles.

[stevan]

When you’re dealing with people and performance training, a nice working model is to assume every person is a three dimensional “random walk” and you need to be three steps ahead of them. For extra fun, assume each dimension has its own unique PDF governing displacement in both angle and length.

Yes. Humans are complex, I just don't see how that affects our management except that you should expect different responses and that you should act accordingly. No one is able to optimize for all the indepent variables or have the "best" training method from the start.

[Murelli]

Stevan is ok. The problem is his writing style and the lack of tone in the internet. Isn't english a second language to him or something?

When he or anyone else rambles too much about an already uninteresting subject I just skim through.

[stevan]

Isn't english a second language to him or something?

Yeah, I'm a slav, we naturally suck at English.

[stevan]

Yeah, I'm a slav, we naturally suck at English.

Balkan or Caucasus Slav?

Balkan with some Czech blood.

[mgil]

Yes. Humans are complex, I just don't see how that affects our management except that you should expect different responses and that you should act accordingly. No one is able to optimize for all the indepent variables or have the "best" training method from the start.

So, yeah.

LP acts as a nice initial filter on an individual to determine response. So one of the things I've been rambling on about, but not formally, for over a year now is that you basically have a novice period and then post-novice. The novice LP filter creates the data upon which the principles of all post-novice programming should be formulated. In DSP-talk, the first order linear filter sets initial parameters for the subsequent "tuned" filters. Then post-novice gains further refine the tuning. Then other things happen, like injury, vacations, kids, whatever happen and further perturb things.

The crux of the argument that a lot of us are putting forth is that all of these studies are nice to try and control some conditions and make some inferences, but a lot is left to be known. Further, the results have to be extrapolated for whatever reason to a population that is not identical to the control. When it comes to SSOC, they look to apply some very basic thoughts to programming and customize very slowly. Also, they put a lot of the success of the programming output on the trainee and some weird virtue system as opposed to putting in some analysis to the lifter's results and framing the data properly to understand how the individual responds to training variables. This is mostly due to the fact that they follow SS principles where "DTP" trumps all and the selection of post-novice programming templates is a bit sparse and the initial application looks to be in accordance to the books. Maybe in some of their advanced trainees or certain coaches are looking at other templates to consider response of the individual, but those cases seem to be lacking. It has been stated, by the head of the organization, that their focus is on "novices" because that's the larger market share (non-barbell users) and that there isn't a lot of money to be made with more advanced trainees.

All of this training stuff can be hard and confusing. It takes time and thought on top of considering the goals of the client and their goals and obstacles. That's on top of trying to consider their personality and attitude towards training. Regardless, what the message is here is that it does take personal experience to understand all of this and take it into consideration when making in-depth opinions on training. For example, while RTS adheres to a fairly consistent training philosophy, there are many coaches onboard. There have been lifters who struggle with one coach and move to another and make gains, and yet there isn't a consistent pattern to who's bad. It comes to the coach-client relationship and the ability of the coach to understand that trainee's progress and use it properly. Again, experience is important.

So what your seeing is that experience matters, but yet we deride someone from claiming experience as a primary source of training knowledge. Well, that's because if you talk to a person like Mike T or Jordan, you'll see that there are likely categories of trainees, but even then the way to program them is not monolithic within the category. In the other case, you see a monolithic look at training, with a "YNDTP" response to non-responders. In other words, most coaches will use their experience to tell you that people can be unique cases where this one person derides the concept of uniqueness.

All of this to say that the words...

...I just don't see how that affects our management except that you should expect different responses...

...throw away this concept or at least marginalize it. I think that makes things seem a bit, well, crass.

Again, I understand that you are a young dude, dealing with a messy paradigm, and operating in a non-native language. I'm using this to temper all of my responses to you. I think that you are keenly interested in how all of this stuff works, and that is good. You're going to need more time of integration, as an individual trainee and coach, to understand how all these things work. Keep reading, keep analyzing, keep thinking, but at the same time keep training and keep applying the knowledge.

[stevan]

All of this to say that the words...

...I just don't see how that affects our management except that you should expect different responses...

...throw away this concept or at least marginalize it. I think that makes things seem a bit, well, crass.

I mostly agree with all you said. Though I was talking solely about programming, here and previously, not all nuances that come with coaching individual athletes. I do not believe in the one best way to manage training.

In my case, I wish I got DTFP advice way sooner as I had troubles with consistency. Showing up and sticking to the plan.

[Hanley]

I think that complexity of a training process is overstated in these circles.

What do you mean by "complexity"? For "strength" you gotta grow muscle and refine motor programs. Dead simple

But getting natty really fucking strong people stronger is super tricky ...very, very small margins of error. Especially, 40+ y/o people (but, again, I don't know if this is what you mean by complexity).

In general optimizing transfer of training in refined athletes is indeed complex. This is the experiential feedback you need.

[stevan]

For "strength" you gotta grow muscle and refine motor programs. Dead simple

Yeah. Yet I see people worrying if they should do 3x5 or 4x4, 70% or 75%, 5x5 or 7x5 and searching for an optimal program post novice LP, constantly tweaking and optimizing... Maybe I'm a susceptible to seeing that as I was also asking same questions in the past. I remember DUP-ing SSLP because Nuckols wrote an article on how you can speed up your novice gains. Didn't really work.

edit: So yeah, I'm actually not that against DTFP in early stages of lifting and that includes post-SSLP.