Not to pile it one cos it's getting a bit excessive, maybe, but having read something and being able to read something are two completely different things. It sounds awfully ridiculous to summarise my education as "learning how to read", but that's exactly what it is. There's details that can never escape me now that I never would have picked up on before. Similarly, I can easily contrast my own reading abilities to others if and when they're unbelievably undeveloped and notice the difference immediately.Originally Posted by Brit67
Some old training partner of mine lacks this ability to read and when prompted with a rounding lower back on all of his deadlifts simply concluded that his hamstrings were too weak. This guy had read all of the relevant material and probably more articles and ebooks than I even know are out there, yet he didn't seem to grasp the very simple notion that a failing muscle group is most likely going to be responsible for itself. That is, a rounding lumbar spine is not going to be caused by weak hamstrings. In fact, I observed his form break down and argued that his hammies were "too strong" as they slacked during the setup and then pulled tension off his back on the ascent. He never listened and, to this day two years after, is still deadlifting below 300 with a hips too low, back rounding form issue.
This is a very clear cut example of someone who cannot read, who cannot interpret and analyse information other people have presented him. Seemingly out of desperation to help other people out, I even quoted Rip verbatim on the idea of the war between the hamstrings and erector muscles of the lower back and he still insisted he was right and continued to do accessory work for his "weak hamstrings". Beyond that being someone I simply can't bother to help any more, it's also indicative of no longer being able to help someone. There's a silly saying in Dutch that, when translated, sound something like "why bother with candles and spectacles if the owl will not see" that almost gets to the meat of the argument. You can read all the books and articles and pamphlets and wiki pages and speeches and journals in the world, which is a lot of fucking material, and still be left with nothing if you don't have the ability to interpret the symbols you're scanning with your eyes. How you read is, in relative terms, more important than what you read. Why bother with either of those if the owl cannot see?
