Rip: The Phenomenology of Barbell Training

[Mark Rippetoe]

The Phenomenology of Barbell Training | Mark Rippetoe

[TommyGun]

The Phenomenology of Barbell Training | Mark Rippetoe

Very enjoyable read, and most readers here are probably familiar with Nassim Taleb as the author of the Preface to The Barbell Prescription. But,he is much more than that. His books (in my opinion) Fooled by Randomness, The Black Swan, and Antifragile are must reads. A great thinker who is fun to read. Can't recommend his books enough.

[Cheesepuff]

When preconceived notions/beliefs are challenged, one has two choices.
1. Dig in and defend / run (which are both easy and painless)
2. Rethink your model of reality (which is hard work and pain)

Sadly, the reality is that most people will vigorously resist ideas that challenge their beliefs.
It is too much work to rethink things.

Voluntary hardships are required for progress. Whether this means considering that the distribution you're dealing with is not normal and/or the outcomes not symmetric, or lifting something heavy off the floor... there is much to be gained with the effort. Or as Rip said "Easy doesn't work".

I recommend Taleb as well. I find his books more like a heavy set of dead lifts. They require effort and recovery... but the gains are important.

I have recently read:
Black Swan
Antifragile
Skin in the Game (think I will reread this one first)

Currently reading:
Fooled by Randomness

[Fulcrum]

I was wondering if you could elaborate on this:

" And perhaps this has something to do with the fact that the heaviest clean & jerk ever performed in a meet happened in 1988 – an interesting contrast to some other sports which have continued to progress."

[Mark Rippetoe]

Am I wrong? Have other sports not improved their world records in 30 years?

[Fulcrum]

I just don't see how its relavent (record from 1988) to the subject of the article: phenomenology.

Am I wrong? Have other sports not improved their world records in 30 years?

Sure. Some yes, some no.

David Epstein: Are athletes really getting faster, better, stronger? | TED Talk Subtitles and Transcript | TED

TL;DR version:
Jessie Owens would probably only lose to Usian Bolt by a stride if he wasn't running in cinders, didn't have high-tech shoes; no springy track surface;
and didn't use starting blocks. Owens and/or his coaches didn't even know how to train a sprinter back then (almost 100 years ago, 1921?).

The Bike record thing is interesting at 5:10. 30 years no progress once their governing body mandated they use the same exact technology/bike when the record was founded.

Probably more relevant to the topic at hand (strength):
Shotput world records have not been eclipsed from that same glorious drug era you referenced (late 1980's / early 1990).

Hammer and Discus record remain unbroken also: The men’s discus and hammer throw records may never be broken - The Washington Post

I will laugh when IFAA/IOC changes the weights of the throwing implements so they can reset the records.
Probably come up with some BS like: "A 16 pound shot is too hard on the athletes shoulder, and let us use a 7kg one now to get on with the metric system thing".

I guess powerlifting seems to moved forward a little lately.

Exponentially more participants in all sports though, so maybe we are really just moving sideways if you think about it.

[Mark Rippetoe]

It may be that the weight sports and the field sports are topped out. My point was that the use of a demonstrably inefficient pull has also persisted for that period of time, and that maybe the two are related phenomena.

[Eric Schexnayder]

Our theory of strength training is that if we intentionally lift progressively heavier weights, we get stronger because lifting heavier weights is only possible with this adaptation, and this adaptation does in fact occur. The veracity and robustness of this theory is demonstrated empirically every time it is tried, and all our observations generate the same trend in the data.[/url]

Rip, I would assert that this is the property not of a theory, but of a law. Laws are observations which are shown to be true every single time when the effect is reproduced under a specific set of circumstances. Specifically, I'd say the Novice Effect is a law of strength training, because when done exactly as prescribed, people always get stronger. When there is deviation from the circumstances under which that law is generated, the law is no longer applicable.

The underlying theory of strength training is Selye's SRA cycle, and this is the theory that is apparently not tested in the exercise science community.

As an analogous delineation, consider the Law of Mass Conservation. Mass is always conserved under the right set of circumstances. Atomic theory is an attempt to explain the Law of Mass Conservation, and as the excellent theory that it is, it was able to predict why mass is not conserved under the conditions of nuclear reactions.

So with Selye's SRA theory, we can explain why when we deviate from the Law of the Novice Effect, the same results are not attained. It is also capable of explaining why the elite are so capable of success despite the non-ideal training conditions. As we learn more about the physiology of adaptation, we find more and more evidence that further supports Selye's theory, which explains your Law.

The perpetual failure of academia is the attempt to reconcile incomplete theories with "unofficial" Laws, since they refuse to acknowledge said Laws. If a theory that is held near and dear to the "scientific" community fails to predict a law discovered by someone outside of their community, then it must be wrong. When new observations are made, theories must be adjusted; observations cannot always be dismissed just because they do not agree with the standing theory.

[IlPrincipeBrutto]

My point was that the use of a demonstrably inefficient pull has also persisted for that period of time, and that maybe the two are related phenomena.

During the same period the snatch WR has been repeatedly improved, and with the use of similarly inefficient pull.
In the case of the snatch I think it's easier to see why what looks like an inefficient starting position might not detract that much from the overall performance; because of the grip, the 'efficient' bar placement would force the athlete to either bend too much forward, which makes the first pull much harder, or start with feet exaggeratedly rotated out, which doesn't help the explosive phase. A compromise is therefore required.

A good C&J is likely the result of a similar compromise; the wider the grip, the further away from a deadlift the first pull is, the further away from the deadlift ideal the starting position will be.

And that's before we even consider possible differences in body proportions. Given a grip width, it seems reasonable to think that two athletes with very different body proportions might adopt slightly different bar placement and starting positions.


IPB

[Mark Rippetoe]

During the same period the snatch WR has been repeatedly improved, and with the use of similarly inefficient pull.
In the case of the snatch I think it's easier to see why what looks like an inefficient starting position might not detract that much from the overall performance; because of the grip, the 'efficient' bar placement would force the athlete to either bend too much forward, which makes the first pull much harder, or start with feet exaggeratedly rotated out, which doesn't help the explosive phase. A compromise is therefore required.

How about because it weighs only about half your deadlift, and you can do pretty much anything you want to with it if you're strong enough?