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.
I'm beginning to think he joined JUST so he could post this, given his whole 3 posts and all.
Yeah.
But how 'bout that Science, huh?
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?
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.
We're to dismiss interference because of some guy named Albert? I didn't even bother to look.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 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.