Training Theory

Stick to training related posts.

Moderators: Dux, seeahill

Post Reply
User avatar
powerlifter54
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7934
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:46 pm
Location: TX

Re: Training Theory

Post by powerlifter54 » Thu May 12, 2016 12:34 pm

Craftsman...hmmmm i like that. My view of "Art" in this context is about creativity and thinking outside the box, but like you said is based on rational thought and in my case immense curiosity that leads to trail and error and constant evaluation. Louie and his statement that he didn't pursue all this stuff for the common good, he chased it to help his total was a huge inspiration for me. He got me tearing through those translated Russian texts and Reading ST cover to cover a couple times. Then it became my shitter reading material for years afterward. (Wanna borrow it?)

A great example of what i am talking about is Prilepin's Table. Charts and Numbers are very cool and where my background lies. But digging through "Training of the Weightlifter" by Roman i realized a flaw. All those numbers are based on Olympic lifts, which is not a big deal, but in Oly lifting the percents are based largely on max C+J and Max Sn for a few Sn Pull type things. So for example in the squat, they are basing the percents on max C+J. So lets just say for ease of math that a Oly guy C+Js 500. His max back squat is 750. So if he is doing squats at 90%, he is doing them at really 2/3 of that percent. It is why you rarely see them go above 115% in the squat. First they don't need to unless there is a first pull problem (got a read a lot of Roman to get that), but second it is why they can squat so often.

As i think about this more i am going to use the Craftsman idea. i do like the Art of Applying the Science. It is an easier metaphor than William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience.

Demon Weed steelllll illegal in Texas dagnammit!
"Start slowly, then ease off". Tortuga Golden Striders Running Club, Pensacola 1984.

"But even snake wrestling beats life in the cube, for me at least. In measured doses."-Lex

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19089
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Training Theory

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Thu May 12, 2016 3:27 pm

powerlifter54 wrote:Craftsman...hmmmm i like that. My view of "Art" in this context is about creativity and thinking outside the box, but like you said is based on rational thought and in my case immense curiosity that leads to trail and error and constant evaluation. Louie and his statement that he didn't pursue all this stuff for the common good, he chased it to help his total was a huge inspiration for me. He got me tearing through those translated Russian texts and Reading ST cover to cover a couple times. Then it became my shitter reading material for years afterward. (Wanna borrow it?)

A great example of what i am talking about is Prilepin's Table. Charts and Numbers are very cool and where my background lies. But digging through "Training of the Weightlifter" by Roman i realized a flaw. All those numbers are based on Olympic lifts, which is not a big deal, but in Oly lifting the percents are based largely on max C+J and Max Sn for a few Sn Pull type things. So for example in the squat, they are basing the percents on max C+J. So lets just say for ease of math that a Oly guy C+Js 500. His max back squat is 750. So if he is doing squats at 90%, he is doing them at really 2/3 of that percent. It is why you rarely see them go above 115% in the squat. First they don't need to unless there is a first pull problem (got a read a lot of Roman to get that), but second it is why they can squat so often.

As i think about this more i am going to use the Craftsman idea. i do like the Art of Applying the Science. It is an easier metaphor than William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience.

Demon Weed steelllll illegal in Texas dagnammit!
Proto is gonna hate this.

Now we need a P chart thread! I totally agree with the point, yet the tool is frustratingly useful. Another one of those competing models of things...like gravity. The Newtonian model of gravity will get you pretty far despite the fact we have a better more accurate quantum model for Gravity that is more accurate.

Sadly we don't have a quantum prilepins chart.... By the end of this thread we might tho... Just need to get you some of the Devils weed and some mushrooms... We can bang that shit out.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

User avatar
Bram
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5543
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:38 am

Re: Training Theory

Post by Bram » Fri May 13, 2016 12:56 am

To continue my interest on plateau-busting, some selections from the new book "Peak" by Anders Ericsson (the guy famous for the "10,000 Hour Rule" to being an expert).

1) "When you first start learning something new, it is normal to see rapid - or at least steady - improvement, and when that improvement stops, it is natural to believe you've hit some sort of implacable limit. So you stop trying to move forward, and you settle down to life on that plateau. This is the major reason that people in every area stop improving."

2) "What we learned from Mr. X's experience holds true for everyone who faces a plateau: the best way to move beyond is to challenge your brain or your body in a new way."
"When times are good be grateful, when times are tough be graceful."

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19089
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Training Theory

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Fri May 13, 2016 1:52 am

Bram wrote: 1) "When you first start learning something new, it is normal to see rapid - or at least steady - improvement, and when that improvement stops, it is natural to believe you've hit some sort of implacable limit. So you stop trying to move forward, and you settle down to life on that plateau. This is the major reason that people in every area stop improving."

2) "What we learned from Mr. X's experience holds true for everyone who faces a plateau: the best way to move beyond is to challenge your brain or your body in a new way."

Mr. Ericsson is clearly an expert in his field, so rebutting a snippet is neither demonstrative nor probably entirely on point for the context the statement was made in. So...with that generous caveat.


1) IME the issue with one is only part of the story. Most people when they slow their progress don't necessarily believe they have hit a natural limit as much as they have grown so used to success that they refuse to fail....(not fail in the max squat fail sense of the word) they refuse to humble themselves to the process, retrace their steps and have another go. IME, this is the far far bigger problem with intermediates. "I'm good now, ergo I should keep getting better, I shouldn't have to go back to earlier levels of development"

2) Challenge yourself in a new way..Totally legit, practically instinctual for many people....Here's the rub right? What "new way" do you challenge yourself with. The world is littered with unfinished novels because of writers block that turned into a navel gazing fetish and never got back on track. This is why you must have a coach/training partner/mentor to reach your potential, so that when you think to "mix it up" you don't end up ass out wasting time. It is a near bombproof observation (blue belt syndrome?) that mixing it up, 9 out of 10 times means quitting**. A far far better approach if you are on your own and don't have someone to guide you on how to "challenge yourself in a new way", is not necessarily to move laterally, it's to move back. Return to the basics...and then continue forward.

There's a time and place for playing it out (that's really what he's talking about is play) and then there is a more common need to return to the root of the thing and then move forward.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6630
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Training Theory

Post by Sangoma » Fri May 13, 2016 12:12 pm

Bram wrote:To continue my interest on plateau-busting, some selections from the new book "Peak" by Anders Ericsson (the guy famous for the "10,000 Hour Rule" to being an expert).
The 10,000 rule is a nice example of a misquote. Ericsson never in fact stated that is you spend 10,000 hours practicing you become an expert. That number comes from the study on musicians; those who had more than 10,000 hours behind them were significantly better performers. There was no correlation between performance and qualities other than time spent practicing. As always popular science journalists misunderstood and misrepresented the results. All subjects were high level musicians, so at that level talent and other personal qualities were pretty equal.

There is this guy who decided to test the 10k rule, I don't remember the name from the top of my head now. He left his job to become the PGA professional. Now, apparently after more than 6,000 hours his handicap is around 5. You have 16 year old guys who played golf for couple of years with handicaps below zero.

I am wearing off topic, but the best book that balances out the bullshit of the likes of Geoff Colvin is The Sports Gene by David Epstein. Nobody argues that practice will make you better at anything, especially where skill is involved. However, the magic 10k, mindful or not, is not a guarantee of getting to the top. Good luck becoming a 100 m sprinter or a basketball pro if you are 5 feet tall. Or a gymnast if your coordination is that of a Koala bear.
Image

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6630
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Training Theory

Post by Sangoma » Fri May 13, 2016 12:21 pm

I do agree with the post above mine. In a rough way there two phases of the learning process, somatic and autonomic. An example is learning to type on the keyboard. First you have to think about where the letters are. After a while the process becomes unconscious, and shortly after that the progress slows down or stops. The trick to overcome this is to make the process conscious again, and one of the ways os to make the trainee to type at considerably higher speed. First he will make lots of mistakes, but then will figure out how to get better/faster and will move to the next level. Another way to bring consciousness to the fore is to break up the skill into components and practice them. Improving dynamic gymnastic skills is the prime example.

I use variations of this when I teach my registrars. Take away one drug they are used to, for example. This way they have to figure out the way to get the same effects from other drug or drugs and start thinking again. Eventually they figure it out and become better anaesthetists. In there words, moving out of the comfort zone lost always makes you better. Not at the beginning, but eventually.

Thanks you for listening to my lecture, gentlemen. I am going to shut up now.
Image

User avatar
powerlifter54
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7934
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:46 pm
Location: TX

Re: Training Theory

Post by powerlifter54 » Fri May 13, 2016 3:53 pm

Often the thing to break the "plateau" after the newby effect is to go back to the starting point that got you moving with early on. This applies to the methods you used to move out of the last plateau also. i have evolved from the idea that any certain cutting edge training methodology is less important than consistent application of just about any sensical approach. i do think some people thrive more on some exercises than others, but this is personal trial and error.

As an example one year at Mil Nats my bench was just pathetic, and i was so pissed i was contemplating hanging it up. But decided to make the move to full blown WSB benching approach. i did a speed day with bands, DB extensions, and lots of upper back. Did a ME day with various grips and board heights, pin presses, floor presses, illegal wides, and high rep db presses on floor, more lighter board lockout reps, and lots of upper back.

This got me going again and sustained me about a year. Along the way i realized the db extensions made my elbow joints sore, the illegal wides were not comfortable, pin presses hurt my shoulders, and with my levers floor presses were basically a regular bp for me anyway. When the gains began to lag, i threw out what i didn't like and went back to ME day with bands and upper back work, and ME day being a board press in a shirt with down sets, raw board lockout work, and upperback. Eventually i added back in JM press on DE day, and found DB floor press or the nfl combine workout was perfect for my easy week. Eventually, despite trying every band setup, i got away from them and went to chains for DE day. Once in a while i go back to my original band setup, two blues knotted together and run under the bench and over the sleeves, for a quick cycle. i now consider RE work to be more important than DE work, because with all the speed work i have done i know i can get speed back in one or two workouts if it lags. Three in the DL.

You just keep honing the basics and going back to them when you get to far out into the strange.
"Start slowly, then ease off". Tortuga Golden Striders Running Club, Pensacola 1984.

"But even snake wrestling beats life in the cube, for me at least. In measured doses."-Lex

User avatar
Bram
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5543
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:38 am

Re: Training Theory

Post by Bram » Sat May 14, 2016 5:25 am

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Mr. Ericsson is clearly an expert in his field, so rebutting a snippet is neither demonstrative nor probably entirely on point for the context the statement was made in. So...with that generous caveat.


1) IME the issue with one is only part of the story. Most people when they slow their progress don't necessarily believe they have hit a natural limit as much as they have grown so used to success that they refuse to fail....(not fail in the max squat fail sense of the word) they refuse to humble themselves to the process, retrace their steps and have another go. IME, this is the far far bigger problem with intermediates. "I'm good now, ergo I should keep getting better, I shouldn't have to go back to earlier levels of development"

2) Challenge yourself in a new way..Totally legit, practically instinctual for many people....Here's the rub right? What "new way" do you challenge yourself with. The world is littered with unfinished novels because of writers block that turned into a navel gazing fetish and never got back on track. This is why you must have a coach/training partner/mentor to reach your potential, so that when you think to "mix it up" you don't end up ass out wasting time. It is a near bombproof observation (blue belt syndrome?) that mixing it up, 9 out of 10 times means quitting**. A far far better approach if you are on your own and don't have someone to guide you on how to "challenge yourself in a new way", is not necessarily to move laterally, it's to move back. Return to the basics...and then continue forward.

There's a time and place for playing it out (that's really what he's talking about is play) and then there is a more common need to return to the root of the thing and then move forward.
Good points.

As for just one example, going back to a lighter weight and using better form can allow for more progress down the line.

It's very hard to sift through the dirt to get to the gold. A lot of people get tired of sifting.
"When times are good be grateful, when times are tough be graceful."

User avatar
Bram
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5543
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:38 am

Re: Training Theory

Post by Bram » Sat May 14, 2016 5:37 am

Sangoma wrote:
Bram wrote:To continue my interest on plateau-busting, some selections from the new book "Peak" by Anders Ericsson (the guy famous for the "10,000 Hour Rule" to being an expert).
The 10,000 rule is a nice example of a misquote. Ericsson never in fact stated that is you spend 10,000 hours practicing you become an expert. That number comes from the study on musicians; those who had more than 10,000 hours behind them were significantly better performers. There was no correlation between performance and qualities other than time spent practicing. As always popular science journalists misunderstood and misrepresented the results. All subjects were high level musicians, so at that level talent and other personal qualities were pretty equal.

There is this guy who decided to test the 10k rule, I don't remember the name from the top of my head now. He left his job to become the PGA professional. Now, apparently after more than 6,000 hours his handicap is around 5. You have 16 year old guys who played golf for couple of years with handicaps below zero.

I am wearing off topic, but the best book that balances out the bullshit of the likes of Geoff Colvin is The Sports Gene by David Epstein. Nobody argues that practice will make you better at anything, especially where skill is involved. However, the magic 10k, mindful or not, is not a guarantee of getting to the top. Good luck becoming a 100 m sprinter or a basketball pro if you are 5 feet tall. Or a gymnast if your coordination is that of a Koala bear.
Ericsson discusses the fallacy of that rule in his book in detail, I'm glad you're read up on it. I threw that reference in, knowing he disagrees with it, just to give a context for him. Haha, I figured no one would catch it though.

I have the Sports Gene on my shelf, it's a good read, but it is quite depressing in a sense. The sheer variety of purely genetic factors that leads to excellence is overwhelming - hormones, how your body oxygenates itself, eyesight, etc.

I'd rather focus on the factors within my control than the reasons I can't succeed. Most people get sick of working hard and staying hungry to improve. And that is within anyones control.
"When times are good be grateful, when times are tough be graceful."

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19089
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Training Theory

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Sun May 15, 2016 6:04 pm

Bram wrote:I'd rather focus on the factors within my control than the reasons I can't succeed. Most people get sick of working hard and staying hungry to improve. And that is within anyones control.
Image
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11475
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: Training Theory

Post by nafod » Mon May 16, 2016 2:08 pm

So here's a plateau-busting anecdote. Had a carrier pilot who had plateaued at the suck level. He had internalized doing it wrong. So as a fix, I made him fly the next practice session from the right seat instead of the normally used left seat. This made him switch hands on the yoke and throttle from left/right to right/left, and put him in a state of not-knowing, so to speak. He had to think his way around the pattern again, and all of the sudden the things I had been yelling at him to do, he started doing.

Can't inhale if you don't exhale. Learning requires a state of not-knowing going into it.
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6630
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Training Theory

Post by Sangoma » Mon May 16, 2016 11:27 pm

This is a great anecdote. In scientific terms you can say you got the guy out of the early autonomic phase.
Image

User avatar
terra
Top
Posts: 1317
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:54 pm

Re: Training Theory

Post by terra » Tue May 17, 2016 7:18 am

nafod wrote:So here's a plateau-busting anecdote. Had a carrier pilot who had plateaued at the suck level. He had internalized doing it wrong. So as a fix, I made him fly the next practice session from the right seat instead of the normally used left seat. This made him switch hands on the yoke and throttle from left/right to right/left, and put him in a state of not-knowing, so to speak. He had to think his way around the pattern again, and all of the sudden the things I had been yelling at him to do, he started doing.

Can't inhale if you don't exhale. Learning requires a state of not-knowing going into it.
This a great anecdote, i'm stealing it. I use similar mechanisms with my patients. This story will communicate what we are trying to achieve very elegantly.

...And to add to Sangoma's comment about 10,000 hours being bullshit.
Research has also shown that the '28 days to create a habit' thing is crap - it's more like 66 days (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 4/abstract).
What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
Bram
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5543
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:38 am

Re: Training Theory

Post by Bram » Tue May 17, 2016 1:38 pm

terra wrote:
...And to add to Sangoma's comment about 10,000 hours being bullshit.
Research has also shown that the '28 days to create a habit' thing is crap - it's more like 66 days (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 4/abstract).
That's a huge range (18-254 days to automate something).
"When times are good be grateful, when times are tough be graceful."

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19089
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Training Theory

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Tue May 17, 2016 2:57 pm

Bram wrote:
terra wrote:
...And to add to Sangoma's comment about 10,000 hours being bullshit.
Research has also shown that the '28 days to create a habit' thing is crap - it's more like 66 days (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 4/abstract).
That's a huge range (18-254 days to automate something).
I'm just guessing there's a pretty divergent range in large part on how the habit reinforces. All reinforcement is chemical to a degree (dopamine) some habits are more strongly reinforced than others.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

Chris McClinch
Sarge
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 10:22 am

Re: Training Theory

Post by Chris McClinch » Tue May 17, 2016 3:32 pm

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Bram wrote:
terra wrote:
...And to add to Sangoma's comment about 10,000 hours being bullshit.
Research has also shown that the '28 days to create a habit' thing is crap - it's more like 66 days (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 4/abstract).
That's a huge range (18-254 days to automate something).
I'm just guessing there's a pretty divergent range in large part on how the habit reinforces. All reinforcement is chemical to a degree (dopamine) some habits are more strongly reinforced than others.
I'd also guess that there's a significant difference between establishing a new habit where none exists and replacing an existing habit. Nafod's anecdote actually speaks to this.

User avatar
powerlifter54
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7934
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:46 pm
Location: TX

Re: Training Theory

Post by powerlifter54 » Tue May 17, 2016 7:50 pm

Chris McClinch wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Bram wrote:
terra wrote:
...And to add to Sangoma's comment about 10,000 hours being bullshit.
Research has also shown that the '28 days to create a habit' thing is crap - it's more like 66 days (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 4/abstract).
That's a huge range (18-254 days to automate something).
I'm just guessing there's a pretty divergent range in large part on how the habit reinforces. All reinforcement is chemical to a degree (dopamine) some habits are more strongly reinforced than others.
I'd also guess that there's a significant difference between establishing a new habit where none exists and replacing an existing habit. Nafod's anecdote actually speaks to this.
Exactly. When i want to fix a person's squat or DL i usually have them go barefoot. Changes feel of the groove enough so they can find what works.Otherwise they stay stuck in same motor pattern they are already doing. In BP not exactly the same but reverse grip reinforces feel of lower as good as anything i know.
"Start slowly, then ease off". Tortuga Golden Striders Running Club, Pensacola 1984.

"But even snake wrestling beats life in the cube, for me at least. In measured doses."-Lex

Post Reply