Amped Training

Main Menu

Quote of the Day

“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”

Albert Einstein

Syndicate

Latest News

Nuggets of Vitriol - November 1, 2007

Why I Call Bullshit On Things That Work

From time to time (ok, constantly) I catch flak from people for hating on something that has given Person X clear and obvious results. Then Person Y will chime in and say the same. Before you know it, it's a huge e-fight.

It'll generally follow this script:

The claim is made: "<insert guru's name>'s <insert stupid acronym> program gave me <insert stupid claim> in just <insert stupidly short time>!"

Basically, pure ad copy.

Then I say something like this: LOL, that program sucks. If I'm feeling extra giddy, I'll add something like "douchebag" for extra flavor.

Then I'll get dogpiled by all the faithful that truly believe in the <insert stupid acronym> program.

You may ask, "Matt, why do you do such things???"

Besides the pure fun of dominating on 'tards in an e-fight, there actually is a valid, underlying reason for that.

I like simplicity. In my thinking, simplicity is elegance. The simple and more straightforward something is, the more likely it is to be effective. In my thinking, the best training programs and best dietary strategies embody this.

Simplicity makes things accessible. It makes them easy to follow. But it has one key drawback: It doesn't sell things.

If something is simple and easily applied, you don't need an outside guru to guide you along. You don't need the guru-expert to explain it to you.

The reason I call bullshit is generally not for lack of results. In many cases I'll even concede that the H.U.G.E. Program or the L.E.A.N. Diet will probably get results.

No, the source of my bitching is not pure efficacy, in itself. I'll start calling names when any given strategy is needlessly complicated.

The reason is simple. Overly complicated strategies are not necessary. They can be fun. They can be a distraction. They can be a change of pace. All of these are valid reasons.

But they are not necessary.

That is why I will sometimes say a program or a diet is stupid. Because it creates the wrong impression: it makes that particular system into a necessity, instead of expounding on the more fundamental principles. The principles are the necessity, not the particular implementation.

As an example, how many diets do you see that claim if you eat bananas or mangos or some other magical shit that you can lose a phenomenal amount of weight in like 2 weeks or whatever? All of these diets are forming a ring around the real cause of weight loss: eating less damn food. There's no escaping it. To lose weight, you have to eat less food.

The specific programs are derived from this basic principle. But the program doesn't tell you that. That doesn't sell.

The same logic applies to training programs. The focus is put on the "revolutionary" implementation, the "unique" strategy this particular trainer incorporated. No mention is made of the fundamental principles that made the program work, like sound exercise selection, or progressive overload.

I see girls all the time that get told in the "mags" by really stupid people that plyometrics are "da bomb" for thinning out the legs and for making really cool changes to the body. I then try to explain something to them about how plyometrics work (ie, that they target the neural and elastic elements of the body, not so much the muscles per se) and how metabolic work is general (your cardiovascular system doesn't care what the activity is if it's of high enough intensity and sufficient duration).

You could be doing any activity with the same relative intensity and overall calorie expenditure, and see the same results. This is an example of how overcomplication can arise in training programs. It's not the plyometrics, or any specific movement type, that is creating the results. It's the simpler explanation, not the complex one.

What you're actually presented with is an integrated re-packaging of a general philosophy. The actual ideology behind (solid) training program and nutritional program design is fairly universal. What you're getting is someone else's ideas about how those pieces fit together and actually work in the real world.

Which is ok. I have no problem with that, because it's a simple fact that in order to even go to the gym at all and have any expectation of results, you have to do this on some level. You can do it yourself, or you can accept somebody else's ideas.

I call bullshit on things that either 1) needlessly overcomplicate the matter and/or 2) make it seem as if the complication is integral to the process.

I call bullshit because neither is the case. Next time you ask yourself if a program is good, or ask me what kind of criteria I use to evaluate a program, ask yourself this question: Is it as simple as it can be?

If it's not, you'd be doing good to ask yourself why, and how it could be simplified. Complication only leads to more points of failure.

Comments

Add New