CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 6:47 am
MarkKO wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 2:22 am
CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 12:19 am
To add to what @Hardartery said, in RP-speak, there are two distinct things:
- stimulus
- fatigue
Stimulus is all the good things that your training does and fatigue is the cost that you have to pay in exchange for that. Feeling a pump, feeling tension in the muscle, being sore etc. is not something they use to evaluate fatigue, it is something that they use to evaluate stimulus. The goal of a good training session is not to accumulate fatigue, it is to accumulate stimulus.
On a tangent: has Beardsley trained anyone of note ? Is he strong himself ? I am genuinely curious because I tried to find his achievements using some google-fu but went nowhere
. Call me a meathead but to me, if you're not strong and have never trained people to get strong, then your advice is worth nothing, as far as the practical act of training is concerned.
Meathead
In all seriousness though, I absolutely agree.
You wouldn't take cooking classes from someone who doesn't cook well, after all.
Exactly, this is something that kills me because in almost all human activities, people instinctively know that if the instructor has not done something then he can't teach you how to to something. No one would hire a math teacher who does not know how to count to 10, an illiterate literature teacher, or a painting teacher that can't draw a stick figure.
Yet somehow in the world of getting bigger stronger leaner whatever this happens all the time. You have the obese coach telling you it's easy to lose weight, the 160 lbs guy selling a bulking routine, the 225 bencher offering powerlifting coaching, and the guy who trained for 8 weeks after spending the last 20 years in front of his PS4 writing a graduate level textbook about what's achievable naturally. And people just eat it up, they love it, they give them views, likes and comments. Infuriating it is.
I have to sort of disagree here. You have to exercise your god given brain and evaluate the information, certainly curve it (or bounded distrust if you want to be more anal) (eg
https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2023/01/09 ... -distrust/), but ultimately truth it truth. Good advice coming from someone doesn't become bad advice b/c of the source (although certainly having a famous person tell you something might have motivational effects).
1: Hurdles coach at my HS essentially ran an export business in athletes, to the extent that people from non-hurdling disciplines would come to him for programming b/c it was better. His track experience pre-coaching? None. The man had never gone over a hurdle in his life, did not run. IIRC he wanted to coach basketball, but job wasn't open so he took the track job to kill time and oops turned out to be really damn good at it.
2: The mark of a good fencing coach (one might say a "real" coach) is can you make fencers better than you are? Just about any monkey can reproduce their own results. But (broad strokes here) fencers are rated E to A, if you're a D can you make Cs? If you can't you're shit. If you can, you're a real coach and anyone else can fuck right off with their comments.
3: Bill Belichick was a crap football player who attended a lol-they-have-a-team school. Tom Izzo was a Div 2 All star on the back of playing a lot minutes at a crap school 1.5 hours past the ass end of nowhere. Laurie Schiller (NU former Head Coach for fencing) was an exceptional coach, who was a perfectly serviceable fencer, but nowhere close to national level (let alone international), one of the winningest fencing coaches in NCAA history.
4: People with the experience should be listened to, but curved for lack of experience as a coach. People without the experience should be hella curved, but you might still find truth there. Especially if they've actually done the work of developing expertise.
5: Advice coming from more academic settings is also suspect, but is also a great source for new ideas. But again, you've gotta (pardon the phrase) apply your discernment to it.
6: Naturally talented athletes often make shit coaches, they don't have to think about their sport. They simply go, do and compete. Then when they retire and go to coach discover they lack the ability to explain/teach and see things from the point of view of those who do not understand from the start. If you discard the advice everyone who hasn't lifted nationally you're limiting yourself, especially as the best coaches are very often people that failed b/c of shit genetics and in the trying learned how to learn about the subject.
7: There is no easy road to truth, merely hardwork, thinking and testing.
Bonus ETA example: For years in the game counterstrike global offensive one of the guns (UMP) was overpowered on a cost/benefit basis. Non-former pro analysts would go on desks at events and ask "It's odd they keep buying other SMGs, the UMP is better here" and pros/the community would go "REEEEEEEEEEEEEE UMP sucks stfu you never played pro/don't know what you're talking about/if you're so smart why weren't you a pro player". This situation lasted about 2 years, then a few pros picked the gun up (perhaps in-between bouts of adderall and being good at clicking on heads they decided to read the stats) and within about a month it was THE gun to buy whenever remotely reasonable. So much so that it warped the entire gun meta around it and the dev had to nerf it substantially. TWO+ YEARS of non-pros pointing this out, and being told to sit down and shut up b/c they weren't pros or former pros. Then "oops it turns out it actually was OP the entire time".
This is a great example, b/c buckets of money are on the line AND it's not something you have to test for 3 months like a training method (plus risks of injury/lost time/blahblahblah). Checking this out is a the work of a long weekend, at most, plus it gave a huge advantage to the first movers plus the risk was nil and it still took 2+ years.