is it an art or science?
Users viewing topic: & 1 Guest
| Joni |  | is it an art or science? | 20-09-2006 @ 12:39 |
 left the country satisfied Member 10, 19241 posts SQ 240, BP 150, DL 270660.0 kgs @ 107kgs UnEq | from LGBs training log: Originally posted by Emperor_Naseem... Originally posted by JDVeganMofo... it is s**te because there is no good reason to dismiss something so strongly when the supporting evidence is shaky both ways. So while i wont run in defence of something like leg press, i can see why LGB chooses to do them, and hence the vague words like can't hurt etc. Thats why it is called art and not science  Joni you are foolish!!! Powerlifting is all about science!!!!! It rests on the scientific principles of biomechanics, physics, nutrition, etc. True there is the law of individual differences which will dictate to some extent the differences between our individual training methodologies, but the process of finding out what is best for you is a process of science - trial and error - test a hypothesis, if it fails, change it and re-test. If it works, try and make it work better. This is the approach the Soviets used to use and was the reason they were so successful with all their atheletes across all sports. the saying about it being an art and not a science is refering to the various ways in which people achieve results in their training. The circumstances vary so greatly from person to another which is why different training methods yeld different results in different cases. Of course all the reasons are rooted in solid scientific principles, but the applications of those depends on so many variations that it becomes next to impossible to analyse something like "will leg press help my squat and dead" with a hard and fast rule as you did. discuss. | ||
| Emperor_Naseem | | ... | 20-09-2006 @ 12:48 |
 As seen on t-nation Member 8, 192 posts SQ 170, BP 125, DL 220515.0 kgs @ 85kgs UnEq | It is a science. And my point is that there is a better way in Joe's situation to achieve her goals than to use the leg press. It was a point that arose in her log, and I only suggested it as a means of making her training better than it is. | ||
| Cuddles | | ... | 20-09-2006 @ 12:58 |
 Eat.Cycle.Sleep.Win Member 2, 12511 posts SQ 190, BP 150, DL 280620.0 kgs @ 99kgs UnEq Administrator | To discount it as not a science would be a mistake, but I think there is much more to it than that. I tend to think that the solid principles that underpin what we do, ie nutrition, muscle fibre development processes (for both strength and size) are all governed by science. However, their application is a much more grey area. I tend to think that there is an art to applying the scientific principles. A good coach needs to be aware of the scientific principles that he is applying, but when to apply them, how to apply them, and how much to apply can come down to art over science. Lots of coaches work by 'feel' and I find it hard to reconcile 'feel' with 'science'. | ||
| Emperor_Naseem | | ... | 20-09-2006 @ 13:02 |
As seen on t-nation Member 8, 192 posts SQ 170, BP 125, DL 220515.0 kgs @ 85kgs UnEq | Post Edited: 20.09.2006 @ 13:03 PM Yes but Olly their application by a coach to individual atheletes in individual situations which you define as a 'grey area,' in turn rests upon the principles of science - test a hypothesis, i.e. try a regime for that athlete, then assess whether it works, i.e strength, speed, skill, measurement, and then change your strategy or hypothesis depending on these results. That is a science. | ||
| Joni | | ... | 20-09-2006 @ 15:27 |
left the country satisfied Member 10, 19241 posts SQ 240, BP 150, DL 270660.0 kgs @ 107kgs UnEq | og course harris and i am not denying that, but why would you have such a strong opinion on what LGB should or should not do then, if clearly you haven't had the opportunity to have a hypothesis, test it, and test it again discounting different conditions and environmental factors and then reach a conclusion? We simply cant know if leg press will aid LGBs squat or dead - there are some anecdotal evidence suggesting that it works, several peeps have reported how it has helped them with their leg drive. There is strong suggestion that leg press is bo***cks. In balance, i dont think we can say, if we want to be scientific about this, either way at this stage and like with all assistance movements a) they are not as vital and b) they are a great way to work your weak areas and c) by rotating them you add variety to your training and d) by rotating them you probably cover all grounds anyway. | ||
| Joni | | ... | 20-09-2006 @ 15:29 |
left the country satisfied Member 10, 19241 posts SQ 240, BP 150, DL 270660.0 kgs @ 107kgs UnEq | by the way, nice to have the first controversial topic on the forum and i am glad to be part of it  | ||
| tokar | | ... | 20-09-2006 @ 22:15 |
 Невыносимо Высокомерный (RIP) Member 11, 965 posts SQ 190, BP 140, DL 255585.0 kgs @ 95kgs UnEq | These were my thoughts in the previous thread: My contribution to this discussion will just be to observe that I fully agree with Haris that powerlifting is all about science, and not remotely about art. What people mean when they say "training is as much art as it science" is usually that there are many areas where no one has a definitive answer - either because different things will work for different people or because we haven't reached the stage where conclusions can confidently be drawn. But it's still science. Here are some more: I agree that the approach of coaches will often not be based on science as such, much less explicitly so. They might well go by "feel", and they might also know little about the science that underpins their thinking and yet still have success - nevertheless constructing training programs and the like is fundamentally something scientific because it is based on evidence and theories born out of tested hypotheses. This is still true even when - as is often the case - the actual formulation of these hypotheses through the years is not done on a particularly systematic basis. Another thing that occurred to me was that the "art" in "as much art as science" is somewhat ambiguous. One tends to think of the word "art" as referring to creative endeavours with at least a partly aesthetic pupose - in which case it's very hard to argue that training has the least bit to do with art. (Unless you count something like my doing 8 sets of 3 or 10 sets of 3 but not 9 because it doesn't appeal to me aesthetically.  ) But "art" is also used just to refer to a certain kind of skill or craft (as in "artisan"). In this sense you might say, along the same lines as above, that constructing training programs is a skill that is simply picked up as one goes along, and you get to a point where you possess the art of designing good programs. If you examine what makes a good program, you are of course looking at sometging scientific - but you are also doing so to some extent (aesthetic considerations aside) if you examine what makes a good sword maker (sorry, I can only think of this rather mediaeval example just now). | ||
| Emperor_Naseem | | ... | 21-09-2006 @ 00:02 |
As seen on t-nation Member 8, 192 posts SQ 170, BP 125, DL 220515.0 kgs @ 85kgs UnEq | There is a tendency when we as people do not understand the details of something to label it as something vague, and therefore art. To be honest I believe that scientific principles underlie a lot of what is referred to as art, even if a detailed scientific understanding is not present at that particular point in time. | ||
| tokar | | ... | 21-09-2006 @ 07:45 |
Невыносимо Высокомерный (RIP) Member 11, 965 posts SQ 190, BP 140, DL 255585.0 kgs @ 95kgs UnEq | Originally posted by Emperor_Naseem... There is a tendency when we as people do not understand the details of something to label it as something vague, and therefore art. To be honest I believe that scientific principles underlie a lot of what is referred to as art, even if a detailed scientific understanding is not present at that particular point in time. I certainly agree with the first statement. As to the second - well, scientific principles could be said to underlie pretty much everything if your view of the world is a materialist one. They even underlie painting, for instance, but that doesn't make painting a science rather than an art. | ||
| Joni | | ... | 21-09-2006 @ 11:56 |
left the country satisfied Member 10, 19241 posts SQ 240, BP 150, DL 270660.0 kgs @ 107kgs UnEq | it seems i have to quote my own original post because some people lack the ability to understand what has been said Originally posted by JDVeganMofo... the saying about it being an art and not a science is refering to the various ways in which people achieve results in their training. The circumstances vary so greatly from person to another which is why different training methods yeld different results in different cases. Of course all the reasons are rooted in solid scientific principles, but the applications of those depends on so many variations that it becomes next to impossible to analyse something like "will leg press help my squat and dead" with a hard and fast rule as you did. so how does this differ from Tokars position? | ||
| Emperor_Naseem | | ... | 21-09-2006 @ 12:52 |
As seen on t-nation Member 8, 192 posts SQ 170, BP 125, DL 220515.0 kgs @ 85kgs UnEq | Originally posted by JDVeganMofo... it seems i have to quote my own original post because some people lack the ability to understand what has been said Originally posted by JDVeganMofo... the saying about it being an art and not a science is refering to the various ways in which people achieve results in their training. The circumstances vary so greatly from person to another which is why different training methods yeld different results in different cases. Of course all the reasons are rooted in solid scientific principles, but the applications of those depends on so many variations that it becomes next to impossible to analyse something like "will leg press help my squat and dead" with a hard and fast rule as you did. so how does this differ from Tokars position? Joni, to be honest, it didn't surprise me when you originally referred to powerlifting as an art, especially as you go on about this 'bulgarian' model for training that you follow, whereby you should lift how you feel on the day. I think this is for people who don't really understand how to structure a training program, or don't want to understand, so it's a kind of laziness in some regards. Powerlifting is science, structure your program, structure your diet, structure your recovery, structure your supplementation, periodize your training, and reap the rewards. There is some room for how you feel on the day, but it shouldn't play a huge part. | ||
| littlegirlbunny | | ... | 21-09-2006 @ 13:29 |
 MIA Member 7, 621 posts SQ 80, BP 45, DL 125250.0 kgs @ 55kgs UnEq | Powerlifting is science, structure your program, structure your diet, structure your recovery, structure your supplementation, periodize your training, and reap the rewards. There is some room for how you feel on the day, but it shouldn't play a huge part. But you are missing out a major variable - you can structure your recovery, supplements, training etc etc - BUT you have to be in the right mental state to make use of it. All of the above - all the training, all the eating, all the recovery - its useless unless your head is in it in the first place. Now, the 'bulgarian' model may not be 'the best' way to train if you were to compare it against a perfectly structured and scientifically based plan on a person who was in a perfect mindset and feeling 100% mentally (and physically) with regards to the plan and their goals. However, we are all human, and although I strongly agree you can apply scientific principle to powerlifting (actually, I agree that it can apply to pretty much anything and when the principles or hypothesis fail or breakdown it is because we haven't got enough knowledge to fully understand the processes occuring) there may be times when the 'bulgarian' model is the correct way to train. Lets take an example. Me. I'm one of those weakwilled sorts who occasionally goes to the gym and can't even face following last weeks reps and sets, nevermind this weeks. Now, with the perfect training program I would continue anyway, get on with it and "reap the rewards". But the fact is - that aint going to happen. You could easily say here "well thats why you have such a s**tty bench then" which is true in some ways. However (and here is the crux of the matter) if i had to follow a scientific plan like that I wouldnt even be benching 42.5kg now. I wouldn't be benching at all - my mind would have given up a long time ago! However, applying the 'bulgarian method' of training has stood me in good stead this far and will have a role for me in the future when, again, training feels like too much (i.e. most sessions lol). There is, of course, a scientific basis behind my mindset, be it environmental or genetic or both - but only the use of the bulgarian method can allow for me to reach my full potential until some bright spark finds the key to the human mind and can give me a training program for that too. Additionally - scientific detailed structured programs give little room for intuition. Im not talking six sense and spiritual stuff here, but logical thought such as not feeling quite up to par. The 'bulgarian method' gives you flexibility to work around 'not feeling quite right' 'having a twinge in the back' 'feeling like the world is just about to cave in on you' All that waffle is basically to say this - dont knock something until you have truely analysed it in a practical application sense. The world isnt a perfect scientific experiement - too many variables changing too often. What works one week on a perfect training plan may well not work the following week. | ||
| Joni | | ... | 21-09-2006 @ 14:35 |
left the country satisfied Member 10, 19241 posts SQ 240, BP 150, DL 270660.0 kgs @ 107kgs UnEq | Originally posted by Emperor_Naseem... There is some room for how you feel on the day, but it shouldn't play a huge part. why would not the feel for the day be grounded in solid science? you dont think that it is scientific to say that the quality or our diet, sleep, restoration and recovery, our mental state and everything has an impact to how the training session goes? Didn't you just do a new bench PB out of blue because you felt good? You are mistaking "scientific approach" to be same than fully controlled environmental variables - in real life situations that simply is not achievable and therefore you just need to factor those in. Thats f**king scientific  | ||
| Emperor_Naseem | | ... | 21-09-2006 @ 14:46 |
As seen on t-nation Member 8, 192 posts SQ 170, BP 125, DL 220515.0 kgs @ 85kgs UnEq | Joe I disagree with your first point. What you describe as 'not being in the right mental state' 90%+ of the time has a scientific cause which you could pinpoint IF, AND ONLY IF, you kept enough of a track on yourself. This is because, unlike what most people understand, there are many more factors that affect strength on a given day than just the usual ones like cross-sectional muscle area, neurological efficiency, creatine phosphate levels (thought I should drop the last one in!). Many of these other factors can also be maximized using scientific principles, and lifestyle changes and measures. For a more complete list of the factors that affect strength, check out this article by Doctor Squat: http://drsquat.com/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=... If you did everything in your power to maximize these variables then you will drastically cut down on your 'bad days' which are incorrectly labelled with things like 'nevermind my head just wasn't in it today.' | ||
| Emperor_Naseem | | ... | 21-09-2006 @ 15:00 |
As seen on t-nation Member 8, 192 posts SQ 170, BP 125, DL 220515.0 kgs @ 85kgs UnEq | JONI "However, we are all human" Yes but dont get caught up in this. If you do, it breeds laziness. Look at the variables I have presented in my previous post, read them, understand them, embrace them, maximize them (if you can). | ||