is it an art or science?
Users viewing topic: & 1 Guest
| tokar |  | ... | 21-09-2006 @ 23:08 |
 Невыносимо Высокомерный (RIP) Member 11, 965 posts SQ 190, BP 140, DL 255585.0 kgs @ 95kgs UnEq | I agree with Haris's two posts above. All aspects of training can be well-grounded in scientific knowledge and method. But of course there is some mileage in the complaint that "it's easier said than done". Some people go to greater lengths to consider all possible variables in their training than others, and it seems to me legitimate for someone to feel that it isn't worth their while analysing a certain aspect of their training in close detail - but if one takes that attitude one should still be honest about it and acknowledge that this is the case, rather than suggesting that any analysis one did do would inevitably be fruitless because "it's just too complicated". (I'm not suggesting this is anyone's position, but I think it's an easy trap to fall into.) Just a note on the "Bulgarian" method - the way this phrase has been used suggests that Bulgarian weightlifters eschewed all scientific principles and just did what the hell they felt like in the gym. This couldn't be further from the truth. The Bulgarian coaches have been some of the most sophisticated and scientifically minded in weightlifting. It is true that a lot of top Eastern bloc weightlifters ended up training according to a plan that placed a lot of emphasis on the physical and mental state of the lifter on a given day - but that is not at all to say that they just did whatever. They still had carefully constructed micro- and mesocycles, and monitored everything they were doing. The basic principle behind what is often called the "Bulgarian" method in this context is that lifters would work up to a "max" for the day over the course of several lifts. They were allowed up to three fails before establishing this day's max. They would then do lots of singles at around that level max -10kg or -15kg. Often they would work back up to the max more than once. In this system, the only "how you feel on the day aspect" is really the actual weights that are used - and even then they would have a very good idea of what kind of level they should be lifting at in relation to the period of training they were in. | ||
| Joni | | ... | 22-09-2006 @ 08:18 |
 left the country satisfied Member 10, 19241 posts SQ 240, BP 150, DL 270660.0 kgs @ 107kgs UnEq | Originally posted by tokar... I agree with Haris's two posts above. All aspects of training can be well-grounded in scientific knowledge and method. again, who are you disagreeing then because i agree with that statement. Perhaps you guys cant read english, or are just very keen on trying to find something to disagree here  The main thing where we disagree here is the eagerness and stubborn attitude of Harris with the leg press question - and why somehow he had the weight of science behind him and the alternative viewpoint didnt. Thats clearly bo***cks. Another possible disagreement could be that i think it is perfectly scientific to factor in your current state of recovery, sleep, nutrition, mood and general "environmental" factors in your given training session. For instance, i am aiming to nail two doubles with 190 on squat soon, if i feel good on sunday, i will go for it. If not, i will do it the weekend after. It would be a mistake to treat training as an insulated and controlled scientific issue where environmental factors are minimised or neutralised to study a very specific hypothesis. Because of the large amount of variables training doesn't work that way. At the same time of course everything is grounded in science and one can take lead from research and knowledge in the field. Its not like you can suddenly stop following the laws of thermodynamics! The other approach is clinical studies, but we dont have the numbers at sugden | ||
| Emperor_Naseem | | ... | 22-09-2006 @ 09:15 |
 As seen on t-nation Member 8, 192 posts SQ 170, BP 125, DL 220515.0 kgs @ 85kgs UnEq | TOKAR, Yes I agree that if you aren't going to maximize them then fair enough, but then you shouldn't don't turn round and say that makes powerlifting an art - it is still a science, its just you arent using the scientific principles to your advantage. | ||
| Emperor_Naseem | | ... | 22-09-2006 @ 09:15 |
As seen on t-nation Member 8, 192 posts SQ 170, BP 125, DL 220515.0 kgs @ 85kgs UnEq | JONI, We are discussing Joni, which is the entire point of the thread. | ||
| Rob | | ... | 22-09-2006 @ 15:27 |
 Does f*ck all for SugdenBarbell.co.uk Member 1, 7173 posts SQ 182.5, BP 110, DL 205497.5 kgs @ 107kgs UnEq Administrator | Good article regarding working within confines of templates was posted on EFS this week: http://www.elitefts.com/documents/beyond_the_template.h.... As a bonus it includes a picture of Joni in 20 years. | ||
| tokar | | ... | 09-10-2006 @ 19:26 |
Невыносимо Высокомерный (RIP) Member 11, 965 posts SQ 190, BP 140, DL 255585.0 kgs @ 95kgs UnEq | Originally posted by Emperor_Naseem... TOKAR, Yes I agree that if you aren't going to maximize them then fair enough, but then you shouldn't don't turn round and say that makes powerlifting an art - it is still a science, its just you arent using the scientific principles to your advantage. That is precisely my opinion. | ||