Pervasive Misinformation

[tweakxc03]

Rip:

How is it possible for so many supposed strength trainers, even those with doctorates, to be so far off when it comes to technique and training? I guess this is sort of a half-rhetorical question.

Before I discovered starting strength, my workout was based on a program put together by a Dr. John Berardi, which recommended not only squatting to just above parallel, but also intentionally shortening the ROM on the bench press by stopping 2-3 inches above the chest. His reason being that tall skinny guys tend to have long forearms, so bringing the bar to the chest puts "unnecessary strain on the shoulder." I find this ironic considering he recommends moving on to the hang snatch after just 8 weeks of training.

To make matters worse, I have a cousin playing on the farm team for Arizona Cardinals baseball. As a shortstop, they are pressuring him to take steroids to get his weight to over 220 pounds. His "strength" coach has a PHD, but for fome reason has him doing NO squats whatsoever, with the bulk of his workouts being of the higher volume, "core stabilization", explosive nature. (This is in the offseason, where his primary goal is to bulk back up).

When he was playing at the University of Miami, they still were doing short ROM bench press and "partial" squats.

I don't know much about strength training, but after reading your stuff, it seems like a huge portion of the coaching community has no clue what they are talking about. Seems next to impossible for someone to even try to find a personal trainer.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I couldn't agree more. Strength coaches most often get credit for what genetics has actually provided.

[bvonrod]

I'm glad someone posted this as it's been popping into my mind a ton as of late. There are so many differing, contradictory views when it comes to technique, training and nutrition. Not to sound like a kiss-ass but after being exposed to Mark's various books, it really shouldn't be up for debate. Correct form is not subjective. There are the laws of physics and he presents the best way to manipulate them to our advantage.

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

"There are so many differing, contradictory views when it comes to technique, training and nutrition"

SOme differences are important, some aren't but most people can't tell the difference. I over heard some kids at the gym arguing whether your stance for the squat should be narrow, medium or wide. Whether it should high bar or low bar. WHether you should do partials, legal or atg. FInally I couldn't take it any more and said "Squats should be heavy deep and hard, the rest are details."

Make it heavy, long (ROM) and hard. Back off when you're sore.

[tweakxc03]

My biggest concern is how in the world do these quacks get PHDs? Don't they have to have an understanding of anatomy before they get to put "Dr." before their name?

As for the HUGE contribution of genetics as a factor, my cousin was making diving catches with a rolled up towel as a football when he was still in diapers. There are people who are just natural athletes from birth.

[tennisgod]

My biggest concern is how in the world do these quacks get PHDs?

The world thinks an expert is anyone from out-of-town.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Yep. Pays my bills.

[Mr.City]

I think a lot of it has to do with people wanting to take the easy way, which is also usually the way that doesn't require much thinking. Partial reps are easier. Core work is easier, and hey, it gives you a six-pack. Heavy work with full ROM is scary and hard, and should the athlete injury himself in the weight room, the strength coach's career put on the chopping block.

[Trolllund]

Do you think getting a Phd in exercise science these people have EVER been required to get under a bar? (Rhetorical question)
I work in a teaching hospital. Every year we get the new interns. Trust me, book smarts does not equal practical application. Some learn this, some don't.

[davew]

My biggest concern is how in the world do these quacks get PHDs? Don't they have to have an understanding of anatomy before they get to put "Dr." before their name?

They might not have needed such knowledge; it depends what they have their doctorate in.

I agree that the connotation is definitely taken advantage of, however.