starting strength gym
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Starting Strength Coaches Association Series: Exercise Science 2014

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    12,495

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by Harcourt View Post
    If you think that insulting people who voted for Reagan is a "presentation of your own work product" on strength training, then you're an even bigger asshole than you appear to be.
    He said the lecture was a presentation of his own work product, actually. You lose a point for reading comprehension, in addition to the one you lost for voting for Reagan.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Farmington Hills, MI
    Posts
    4,689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Harcourt View Post
    If you think that insulting people who voted for Reagan is a "presentation of your own work product" on strength training, then you're an even bigger asshole than you appear to be.
    You have no idea.

  3. #13
    Brodie Butland is offline Starting Strength Coach
    Consigliere
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Cleveland
    Posts
    3,930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Harcourt View Post
    He is welcome to disagree with me on politics as much as he pleases. But there's a place for that, and it isn't in presentation of papers on strength training. If he's half as goddam smart as you think he is, he should understand that.
    What's amazing is, in the room where that presentation took place--which probably had an average conservatism just shy of a John Birch Society meeting--not a single person took offense at it.

    You know, you're free to make stupid comments as much as you please. But there's a place for that, and it isn't in the Interviews and Lectures forum. If you're half as goddamn smart as you think you are, you should understand that it's Ends and Pieces.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,170

    Default

    I'm beginning to think he joined JUST so he could post this, given his whole 3 posts and all.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Farmington Hills, MI
    Posts
    4,689

    Default

    Yeah.

    But how 'bout that Science, huh?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Vista, CA
    Posts
    1,937

    Default

    Harcourt=irrelevant. To get this back on topic, 1 question and 1 interesting sidenote:

    1) Sully, In regards to the interference effect, is there a way to actually research this effectively? If you were designing this study, how would you volume-match an aerobic, anaerobic, and combined program to test for the interference effect? I tried imagining myself in the researchers' shoes and couldn't make it work: even if you make someone run/row/swim/bike/etc. at a fixed capacity (tm, endless pool, whatever), how would you compare that stress to the stress induced by barbell training? If I have them use the same movements for both groups and just use different energy systems, the training doesn't look like a real workout and the stimulus doesn't stress the body the same way: 45 front squats at 95# in 2 minutes just isn't the same as doing 3X5@285 with sufficient rest... and when I halve/combine the two methods to make the 'interference group,' the volume for each 'workout' becomes untenably small.

    2) The Russells released an article by David Barnett the same day as your second video (Feb 6th) that claims to offer evidence against the interference effect and specifically quotes the Hickson study. I'll copy-paste the relevant section here to save time and hits to their website:

    "Over roughly two and a half years, Albert had taken 1:34 (23% improvement) off of his mile time and added 60 pounds (31% improvement) to his snatch. Despite Hickson’s conclusion, Albert’s “capacity to develop strength” certainly didn’t seem hindered to me. In my humble opinion, any weightlifting coach would be satisfied with his development as a recreational CrossFitter training with a weekly time commitment almost identical to the subjects in Hickson’s study."

    I've never trained in the Olympic lifts for an extended period, but an improvement of 60# in the snatch in 2 years seems incredibly slow. I have trained in running, and I know that going from a 6:57 to a 5:23 should not take anywhere near 2 1/2 years in a healthy, lean individual (like Albert). In the experience of any SSCs reading (many who work at CF gyms), is this kind of progression the inevitable consequence of interference, or would the athlete progress faster if he had spent 15 months doing purely Olympic lifting and then focused on mainenance while spending 15 months on sprinting and endurance?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathon Sullivan View Post
    Yeah. But how 'bout that Science, huh?
    science? we don't need no stinkin' science! we come for the pi fights (or is that pie, i can't keep them straight)

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    12,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Harcourt View Post
    He is welcome to disagree with me on politics as much as he pleases. But there's a place for that, and it isn't in presentation of papers on strength training. If he's half as goddam smart as you think he is, he should understand that.
    Miss Manners, is a strength training forum really the place for you?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Farmington Hills, MI
    Posts
    4,689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ Gotcher View Post
    1) Sully, In regards to the interference effect, is there a way to actually research this effectively? If you were designing this study, how would you volume-match an aerobic, anaerobic, and combined program to test for the interference effect?
    It is a difficult experiment to design, but I think there are ways around it. For example, you could do a design with RT + HIIT in one group and RT + LSD in the other, with the conditioning components (one anaerobic and one aerobic) matched for total power output. That's just one idea off the top of my head.

    2) The Russells released an article by David Barnett the same day as your second video (Feb 6th) that claims to offer evidence against the interference effect and specifically quotes the Hickson study. I'll copy-paste the relevant section here to save time and hits to their website:
    "Over roughly two and a half years, Albert had taken 1:34 (23% improvement) off of his mile time and added 60 pounds (31% improvement) to his snatch. Despite Hickson’s conclusion, Albert’s “capacity to develop strength” certainly didn’t seem hindered to me. In my humble opinion, any weightlifting coach would be satisfied with his development as a recreational CrossFitter training with a weekly time commitment almost identical to the subjects in Hickson’s study."
    We're to dismiss interference because of some guy named Albert? I didn't even bother to look.

    I think the burden of proof remains with the anti-interference effect camp. If somebody can show us, with data, how to train strength and endurance simultaneously while optimizing improvements in both, nobody will be happier than I. I'm not holding my breath.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,170

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathon Sullivan View Post
    I think the burden of proof remains with the anti-interference effect camp. If somebody can show us, with data, how to train strength and endurance simultaneously while optimizing improvements in both, nobody will be happier than I. I'm not holding my breath.
    +1. I haven't read the entire article, but based on that excerpt do we even know the training was simultaneous? Maybe "Albert" cycled on and off between LSD and RT. Do we even know if the improvements were measured simultaneously? Maybe they were taken months apart in which he improved one, dropped the training, and then improved the other. 2.5 years is certainly plenty of time to alternate back and forth to make the data show whatever the author wants it to.

    Not to mention the extremely large and representative sample size of 1.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •