Origin of Bodypart split routine?

Underground S&C Underground
21

good stuff by vermonter. no offense taken, this is a simple intellectual debate, and i hope to learn something. i've been wrong before, and adjusted my training accordingly.

SG - "there multiple forms of overtraining, from subtle CNS stuff, to blatant extreme muscular soreness"

coach doug - "indeed i'm sure you're right, but you should avoid making "factual" statements about the causes of overtraining since even the scientific community isn't sure what it is. It's likely, much like the term 'shin splints' that what we generally call overtraining is actually several different afflictions."

SG - "true enough, and i should have been clear that my point was rather narrower. the "muscle soreness" guideline is pretty much just for pure muscular development. not my idea, something i read from another another trainer, worked very well for me, and helped be break through plateaus."

coach D - "what you describe could just as easily be a result of doing a lift "improperly" as it is a need for isolation lifts. I'm not particularly convinced that your argument here necessitates doing isolations because compound lifts spread resistance unevenly."

SG - even if you don't believe that compound exercisies exercises work muscles unevenly, the point is moot for any athlete that uses any of these muscles significantly during his skills/sparring/rolling routine. and can any of you truly say that you can't think of ANY compound exercisies that work one muscle more or less than another?. squats work a lot of differnent muscles, but do you really think that it works your hamstrings just as much as it works as it works your quad? as much as it works stabilizer muscles in your back?

SG - "some forms of overtraining may not be immediately obvious to a novice. your coach and a little but of reading should give you the general guidelines of your sport. a lot of the CNS stuff has been intensively studied by powerlifting and weight lifting coaches. and the longer you train/compete, the better you learn to listen to your body. unfortunately, you usually have to push yourself over the limit a few times to find out exactly where the line is."

coach D - "coach can study it until he's blue in the face but many symptoms of overtraining will continue to mimic depression, anxiety, and so on, and so be elusive to even the greatest scrutiny. Additionally, overtraining symptoms tend to protect the motions that cause the overtraining, and so performance is certainly not the first the suffer (at least with the primary sport movements in question). "

SG - legit points, but have you got a better method than listeninig to a qualified coach, reading the experts, listening to your body and going by your previous experience? your coach has generally spent years doing the sport, surrounded by others doing the sport, had the wisdom of his own coach, and reads the experts. the athlete has the obvious benefit of being the only person who really knows how he feels, and has the benefit of his past experience with his own body, and how it reacted to previous simialr sitauations and previous training environments.

SG - "your muscles grow/adapt/get stronger while resting not when working out. the purpose of your workout is stimulate your muscles,"

" suppose this depends on when you consider the "growing" period to have begun, but alright."

"yeah, you can get stronger while continually being sore - but its a lot slower, and you plateau a lot lower. "

"since soreness is a pretty poor indicator of progress or lack thereof i'm not sure what you are striving at by making such a blatantly obtuse and arguable a statement as this."

SG - you're right, i was being a little obtuse. again, i was speaking about a rather narrow area of overtraining a single muscle group and muscle growth. and i never used soreness as an indicator of growth, only as to when i would do my next strength workout should be. my indicator of progress was my progress.

22

"this is the pure muscle end of it. there are still CNS adaptions you can make, but generally, you want to minimize trauma during the growth period. "

"i don't know what this means at all. Minimize what trauma? For what result?"

SG - if i did a lot of leg work one day, i probably would do something besides running for cardio later. the leg training interfered with my running, and my running interfered with my leg recovery/growth. you can't look at any part of your training as a seperate, isolated thing, all the differnent exercises that you hit a body part with all have their own effects. it's harder to build muscle/strength when you're doing butloads of cardio with that same muscle group. if your coach makes you do 300 reps of a takedown drill against a resisting opponent, and your biceps are cooked afterwards, it really doesn't make that much sense to do another strength excersise for your biceps afterward, they've already been pushed to the limit, working them more would make you weaker, not stronger. if you didn't push them that hard? different question, different answer. if they only got a little work, go ahead, work them.

"why the heck would EVERY exercise work every muscle to the exact same degree, and require exactly the same recovery time?"

coach D - "while i suspect you are probably right, this is not a very good argument. You made the claim that compound exercises were better than isolation. If a compound lift is so modifiable, why wouldnt you adjust it based on your earlier skill sessions, if the compounds really are better?"

SG - if my triceps are so sore that they feel like they're going to fall off, but my chest got little work, there really aren't any big compound pressing motions i can use that won't work my triceps. it makes more sense just to switch off to another exercise.

"My point is, you are making a contradictory claim by saying that compounds are better for the sport, but then making an argument against their use. A better argument for your position would be that both are useful, but in different ways."

SG - true, but i think my post was a little more nuanced than that. while i've been taught the big compound exercises tended to be better for real world activies, sometimes they're just not an option for the state your body is in that day. so i guess we agree with your final statement.

SG - "a good rule of thumb is AT LEAST 24 hours after you got rid of the last bit of muscular soreness)"

"again this is highly debateable."

it is an imperfect science, and if you have a better method, i will happily start using it. this is a method i read about a long time ago, i applied to my training, and it has worked well for my body. the idea was generally that your workout stimulated muscle growth (and caused trauma - your muscles are weaker immediately following a workout than b4), then your body recuperates from the trauma (you reach the point where you are as strong as you were b4 that workout), and then your muscle hypertophies as an adaptive response to your workout (you're stronger than you were b4). after your muscles finishes growing in response to your workout, you begin the long slow slide into atrophy. your body reacts to the lack of stress on a muscle group by shrinking. the point of my workout schedule is to hit the muscle and the end of the "hypertrophy" stage, but before atrophy. (it was easier for me to understand when i had the graph in front of me). yeah, it may not be quite as clear cut as that, maybe your body begins some adaptive processes during the workout, but the vast majority of real recovery and growth come afterwards.

23

"my lifting and cardio training have always been based on fight training, not bodybuilding. like matt hughes,"

So are you attempting to argue here that "fight training" is better than bodybuilding for MMA? It's probably wise to shy away from this sort of approach. It doesnt take a college degree (or a high school degree for that matter) for someone to say to you: "But Matt Hughes was a long time dominating UFC champion." Seems like an endorsement to me. (Keep in mind here that i'm assuming Matt Hughes trains as a "bodybuilder" which i neither know for certain, nor do i believe).

probably accidental, but the way you edited that sentence completley reversed it's meaning. in reality it reads "my lifting and cardio training has always been based on fight training, not bodybuilding. like matt hughes, i've found certain bodybuilding lifts useful, but thats not the focus of my training."

to be clear, i was pointing out that some of the controversial elements of my program were similar to parts of hughes program.

i'm assuming you just weren't reading carefully, and made an honest mistake, instead of trying to put words in my mouth in some kind of debating dirty move. but just be safe, lets keep our "hands above the waist, to prevent any low blows" :)

24

SG - " i've gained about a 100 pounds of solid muscle, at the same height and bodyfat%. "

coach doug - "This sounds extremely improbable."

SG - it is improbable, thats what makes it so exceptional. as a point of fact, i was the Quincy High Wrestling Varsity 171 lb in 1989, at the same height i am now. i'm leaner and stronger than i was in my UFC appearance (had a few surgeries, i'm healthier now, and have made some improvements in my program). i'm not perfect, but i didn't have a perfect body then either - i was a fatboy varsity heavyweight in '88, then dropped 50 pounds or so to 171, but still had worse bodyfat than i do now. yeah, tall, scrawny arms and legs, little potbelly, it was ugly for a guy working out 3 hours a day at wrestling practice. lousy genetics. but i've been lifting for 20 years. never underestimate the power of 20 years of hard work, discipline, dedication, and know-how. and that's only averaging about 5 pounds of muscle gain a year, completely achievable by a truly dedicated athlete that knows what he's doing.

SG - "doug can attest that i'm a lot leaner than i was at the UFC (and stronger too)."

coach doug - "I havent payed much attention, but you look the same to me. shrug"

well, next time you see me, you can pay attention if you want.

SG - "people frequently tell me i'm the strongest person they've ever rolled with. i have been manhandled by good athletes with superior technique and leverage,"

coach D - "Well, you're a big guy. You would be better served in your training by other 280 lb guys who arent at all impressed by your strength, don't you think?"

i completely agree. but any good trainer has to be aware that your training program is the art of the possible. i would like to have rickson as a personal coach, and then have militech give me a rubdown afterwards. but you can only use equipment and resources that you actaully have, not the ones you wish you had.

if you can point me in the direction of a local gym that is full of highly skilled 280lbers, i would be happy to work out there. unfortumately, no such place exists. it evens out, most other big heavyweights are in same situation.

before someone tells me to move, i'm already in an elite camp, better than what 99% of other people have, with a lot of local networking traininig opportunities with guys at other local camps. i am much better off with the elite trainers and training partners where i am than with a collection of big guys without as many skills. and if you are really trying to use technique instead of strength, it doesn't matter quite as much anyway.

the above 3 posts have been edited for clarity, bad copy/pastes, and to add a few zingers i didn't think of earlier :)

25

ttt

26

Gannon,

Well it looks like i've got you thinking a bit, which is what i was after. Maybe now you can look at some of the questionable portions of your philosophy and refine it.

Notice that you say things like "it is an imperfect science" and yet feel confident in making factual claims that are far from evident. These sorts of claims are what i was picking at in my first post (take a look back).

I think it would be a good idea for you to figure out how exactly you feel about isolation exercises versus compound, and work out what it means to your philosophy. You should realize that your arguments do not support your initial claim that compounds tend to be superior.

I also think you should avoid arguing some of the rhetoric about overtraining, especially your use of the term "soreness" and how you seem to sometimes use it as a synonym (at least in part) to over training. Muscle soreness (DOMS) and overtraining are not the same, and although i can tell you are now making strides to seperate the two, it's hard for me to seperate them in some of your above arguments, and i can't make much headway in an argument.

You might also want to put some thought into my questions about the systemic versus local nature of overtraining. When you say local overtraining do you only mean soreness? I can't tell, and i'm not sure if you've even thought about it, so again, i can't really continue the debate any further as is.

And as far as the Matt hughes thing, you were right, read it poorly. Please, disregard my comments in reference to that.

-doug-

27

doug, i wasn't putting down book knowledge when we first started talking. almost my entire program has come from reading guys like you. i'll read a good idea, see how it works for my body/sport, and keep it/modify it/drop it according to my experience with it.

one thing you're helping me with now is being more precise/accurate with my terminology, which i think has caused a lot of our confusion.

when i was talking about overtraining, then clarified that my points about overtraining were narrower than than the scope of ALL forms of overtraining, and "muscle soreneness was pretty much just a guideline for pure muscle growth." i was talking about what you call "localized overtraining" and DOMS.

as far as "imperfect science", we're all working off an imperfect science. you still haven't come up with anything better. one guy i got some of my guidelines from won a Mr. Olympia. if all i get from an "imperfect science" is being the best in the world at something, i'll be thrilled. a lot of his ideas became obsolete, and some were just flat out wrong, but the stuff that worked i kept, the stuff that didn't work for my body/my sport i abandoned and tried new stuff.

"you should realize that your arguments do not support your initial claim that compounds tend to be superior"

i think you're guilty of another bad read. go back and read it again. you'll find that is not at all a reasonable conclusion to what i wrote. and then go to any pro football team's weight room, and see whether they're doing more isolation exercises, or more compound motions. my point is that compound exercises generally translated better into real world athletic activity than isolated exercises (you can argue this point seperately). my other point was that sometimes compound exercises weren't practical, but doing a modified exercise was better than sitting on your ass. did i say the isolated exercises were better for athletic performance? no, i just stated that they were better than sitting on your ass when it wasn't practical. to be perfectly clear - the compounds exercises are usually better for athletic performance, and i do them whenever possible. if they're not a practical option at that time, i use something different that does suit my needs.

as to systemic vs. localized overtraining - if you read what i wrote carefully you would see that i made that distinction a long time a go, when i specificly stated (repeatedly) that my points about overtraining were referring specificly to muscle soreness and the development of a single muscle group (what you call localized overtraining).

28

and doug, you still haven't given us better guidelines than the ones i've accumulated from various other trainers and coaches already. you know it's not fair to simply criticize someone's solution without providing a better alternative. if an experienced trainer/coach/competitor gives me some general guideline and it works for me, I keep using it until I find something better. give us something better instead of simply criticizing something that has worked well already.

edited 1/02/07, 12:30 am

29

Gannon,

"i wasn't putting down book knowledge when we first started talking."

I didnt think you were. :)

"one thing you're helping me with now is being more precise/accurate with my terminology, which i think has caused a lot of our confusion."

I think it has been a great source of confusion. The advent of printing and the scientific process together luckily lead to a widespread agreement that (at least in the scientific community) semantics needed to be standardized. I think it's a good practice for you and i as well.

"when i was talking about overtraining, then clarified that my points about overtraining were narrower than than the scope of ALL forms of overtraining"

Right, and when you eliminated talk of overtraining, about 50% of my original reason for debate vanished. That's one down :) My only point in saying you should avoid the talk about overtraining (in my last post) was to sum up the reason why i started discussing it to begin with. You've made strides so far, but these things take time to sink into one's brain, so give it time. They also effect your entire philosophy, so again, give it time.

"i was talking about what you call "localized overtraining" and DOMS."

I don't call DOMS, 'localized overtraining.' I was wondering if you did. I take it that you've seperated the two, and thats a good idea, but you still have failed to refine your beliefs about overtraining itself. Maybe you'd rather scrap the whole overtraining thing altogether (just because you've seperated the two doesnt mean you've gotten rid of overtraining altogether, so i'm just seeking a little clarification).

"as far as "imperfect science", we're all working off an imperfect science. you still haven't come up with anything better."

Better for what? I dont recall claiming i did have anything better.

"i think you're guilty of another bad read. go back and read it again. you'll find that is not at all a reasonable conclusion to what i wrote."

I think it's a fine conclusion. Luckily i dont have to go back, since you summarize it just fine in the very same paragraph :)

"my point is that compound exercises generally translated better into real world athletic activity than isolated exercises (you can argue this point seperately)."

Although this is very arguable, you can make this claim without any problem from me. However your premises simply do not support it. (quick note: when i say something is arguable, you should realize that i have not made any indication of how I feel about the topic. It is a common error in debate to believe that stating a topic is arguable or not residing on scientifically stable ground is tantamount to agreeing with the opposite, which it most certainly is not. It seems possible that you have made this mistake.) At the very least, you are playing "fast and loose" with the term 'generally' which you said this time, and i think 'tend to be' is what you said about the superiority of compounds last time. It's pretty easy in a debate to use these terms and then back peddle when someone calls you on it by saying "WHOAH WHOAH, i said "generally" back there, not all the time." But realize that a qualifier like that does little but cast uncertainty on the claim you're trying to make. And no, i don't care what is happening in a football workout room. A lot of them do HIT there do, that doesnt make it right. Anecdotes tend not to hold up well against scrutiny either.

"my other point was that sometimes compound exercises weren't practical, but doing a modified exercise was better than sitting on your ass."

Right. Your other point was that, considering the nature of combat sports, AND the nature of compound exercises, that isolation exercises are often indicated for use. That's fine, but how often does often need to be before we forget the whole thing about compounds 'generally' being better? Again, you're arguing that both compounds and isolations are very useful for compound athletes, and you are then claiming that compounds 'tend to be' better. This is a faulty argument. It's faulty because compounds 'sometimes not being practical' (again a little fast and loose with qualifiers), works against compounds 'generally being better.' The big issue here may not with you, but with whomever you read about this info. Many unfortunately well respected coaches play this sort of game with shady qualifiers that make every point seem sensical when in fact it is quite non-sensical. The other common mistake is that an author is exceptionally precise in his terms and qualifiers, but is probably so dry and technical that it forces shakey interpretations of the work. Anyway, i digress on that rant....

"did i say the isolated exercises were better for athletic performance? no,"

I'm pretty sure i never insinuated that you did.

cont

30

"as to systemic vs. localized overtraining - if you read what i wrote carefully you would see that i made that distinction a long time a go, when i specificly stated (repeatedly) that my points about overtraining were referring specificly to muscle soreness and the development of a single muscle group (what you call localized overtraining)."

You didnt make that distinction. You made the distinction between DOMS and overtraining. That's good. But you also previously made claims about overtraining having a local component that you never clarified. Maybe, since you seperated DOMS from overtraining, you want to get rid of the whole localized overtraining thing altogether and that's fine. But it's something you should think about first.

And again, personally, i dont call DOMS: localized overtraining.

"and doug, you still haven't given us better guidelines than the ones i've accumulated from various other trainers and coaches already. you know it's not fair to simply criticize someone's solution without providing a better alternative. if an experienced trainer/coach/competitor gives me some general guideline and it works for me, I keep using it until I find something better. give us something better instead of simply criticizing something that has worked well already. "

Better guidlines for what? Your original clamor for "better guidlines" came (i believe) when i doubted the validity of your wait-24-hours-after-DOMS-subsides rule. Is that what your after?

Firstly, there is no issue of 'unfairness' in me doubting that assertion without 'giving you something better.' If you think this attempt will goad me into making some argument of my own, you are mistaken.

Secondly, since we've seperated DOMS from overtraining, than what is the point of the rule, aside from your (anecdotal) personal experience? I'm sure you could also go into some football lockerroom and ask their coach if they train while their still experiencing DOMS and he might say "That's the best way to get results!" Uh oh.... It is almost definitely a bad idea to continue intense training while overtrained (some coaches seem to think its alright for a little while), but why not with DOMS? You need to give some rational that makes sense. Maybe its because you're too sore to workout as intensly as you otherwise would, which reduces results. Alright that's a good argument. However, once we eliminated talk of overtraining, your physiological rationale to support this claim evaporated, and it needs new support (this is why i suggested taking time to mull over what the adjustments to your semantics meant to your argument).

Anyway, hope that clarifies a few things.

Good discussion,

-doug-

31

I want to add something into the compounds-are-generally-superior side of things because i sincerely hope that you choose to not attempt to continue that line of rationale.

Consider an example in which we have Kenny doing skill work 6 days per week, and he's fighting an opponent who is a sucker for hooks and front kicks, so Kenny is drilling them hard and his quads, glutes, hip flexors, chest and shoulders are taking a beating. Lets also say that Steve Whittier and Keith figured out who Kenny's opponent does his armbars so they've been drilling armbars hard on kenny too, and his biceps are getting a lot of work then as well.

Now, this is a scenario that is easy to imagine, and not unlikely to occur. However in this scenario, for the 3 or 4 months kenny is preparing, his chest, shoulders, biceps, quads, hip flexors and glutes, are hammered almost daily in training. This seems to eliminate (according to your premises) all compound upper body and lower body movements, since it would be too taxing on the heavily worked muscles. The only lift that i can think of off the top of my head that would be kosher would be the compound version of the pullover, but even then....

So it seems as though i've given an example here in which your argument would support an isolation only workout, for a full 3 to 4 months of training. It seems as though it is difficult to claim, using your own argument, that compound exercises 'tend to be better' or even, considering this scenario, belong some regimines at all.

-doug-

32

ttt

33

Isn't there a difference between the intensity of trying to increase your 1RM on the squat and simply doing a maintenance routine to keep the strength you've already built?

34

great thread. you're a highly intelligent and skilled debater. but...

SG - "one thing you're helping me with now is being more precise/accurate with my terminology"

Coach D - "I think it has been a great source of confusion. The advent of printing and the scientific process together luckily lead to a widespread agreement that (at least in the scientific community) semantics needed to be standardized. I think it's a good practice for you and i "

maybe i was being a little too polite, i was hoping you would take the hint -

i am fully aware that semantics need to be standardized. however, this is an interdisciplinary field (new sport, borrowing training concepts from numerous other sports) and the terminology is not standard in every field. individual trainers frequently do differ in exactly what they call something. Dr. Hatfield called his strength/diet plan for Holyfield "zig zag dieting". a bodybuilding trainer might call it "bulking and cutting". these are different names for the same principle. if it's not immediately obvious to you, you can usually pick this up from the context. also, remember, i've been reading about this stuff for 20 years. the terminology in any field will shift during that time. i never studied this stuff for a test, i didn't care what they called it, i was more interested in useful training ideas.

the terminology i used was usually taken directly from the source, and is usually obvious within the context. when questioned, i've explained it (REPEATEDLY!). there are several different forms of overtraining, and simply overtraining a particular muscle to the point where it's not getting stronger IS a very legitimate kind of overtraining, and that was the terminology used by the trainier (an experienced and published guy).

doug, you're smarter than that. a lot of these things were obvious from the context, and have been explained REPEATEDLY. most of our disagreement disappeared when we defined our terms.

using the right terminology is useful in science, but it's especially useful to keep people from scoring rhetorical cheapshots.

doug, i stopped using most of those same debating methods years ago, simply because they weren't helping anything but my ego. my goal was to learn as much i could, not to somehow "beat" someone with high school debate team tactics.

you have a keen eye for weaknesses (or apparent weaknesses) in other peoples arguments. this is very useful. but just as useful is the ability to recognize the useful ideas they may have. from the pattern of your arguments, it's starting to look like you're one of those guys who is only interested in tearing down other peoples statements. you've been repeatedly invited to add something useful in terms of genuine training method, and you've repeatedly refused. you explicitly mentioned that you weren't putting things out there because it made it harder to argue against you effectively. yes, this is a highly effective high school debate team tactic for "winning" an argument, but a poor method for genuinely sharing knowlege. and in an internet argument, there often no winners, just a bunch of f*ck'n LOSERS! :)

a more effective way to learn by debate is to spend as much time looking for TRUTH in what someone is saying as you do trying to prove them wrong. none of us have all the answers, but many have differnt pieces of the truth, useful ideas, concepts etc.

if you read my posts more carefully, you might have realized that these weren't just my personal "anecdotal" opinions. i read the best experts i can find, the Poliquins, the Hatfields, the JC Santanas, and many others, read about their methods and principles, and adapted them to my training. if it worked for me/my sport, i kept it, if it didn't, i modifed or ditched it.

i'm you've got a good local reputaion in the field, i was hoping you could give me something useful to play with.

and no, the faux-socratic method BS isn't really helping. none of the stuff you're "helping me think about" is anything new to me. i hashed out those ideas many years ago. if you don't understand it, read it again or ask more relevant questions, and maybe you will understand my statements.

35

as far as your statement about an athlete's sport specific preparation making it compounds impractical, possibly for extended periods of time -

this is exactly a point i made earlier, but you're a little limited in your conclusions. in fact i used a very similar example to illustrate my own point on this same thread.

the big compound exercises tend to produce a lot of benefits that small isolated muscle exercises don't (not anecdotal experience, a widely accepted belief among many strength coaches, you can argue it seperately if you want). but sometimes, for whatever reason, they aren't practical, and you use a different, more "isolated muscle" exercise instead. that doesn't mean the substitute exercise is giving you all the benefits the compound exercise does, it just means it's better than sitting on your ass. if you have bad ankle injury, you might not use squats, deadlifts, or many plyos (or running for that matter) for 3-4 months. you will probably use other exercises as substitutes (it's better than sitting on your ass), but that doesn't mean you'll get the full benefits of the useful compounds and other exercises. the world just doesn't work that way.

thats WHY i use the terminology like generally and "tend to", because those are the most accurate terms to briefly describe a more complex scenario. they're not debate team doubletalk but they are accurate.

Coach D - "Although this is very arguable, you can make this claim without any problem from me. However your premises simply do not support it. (quick note: when i say something is arguable, you should realize that i have not made any indication of how I feel about the topic. It is a common error in debate to believe that stating a topic is arguable or not residing on scientifically stable ground is tantamount to agreeing with the opposite, which it most certainly is not. It seems possible that you have made this mistake.) At the very least, you are playing "fast and loose" with the term 'generally' which you said this time, and i think 'tend to be' is what you said about the superiority of compounds last time. It's pretty easy in a debate to use these terms and then back peddle when someone calls you on it by saying "WHOAH WHOAH, i said "generally" back there, not all the time." But realize that a qualifier like that does little but cast uncertainty on the claim you're trying to make. And no, i don't care what is happening in a football workout room. A lot of them do HIT there do, that doesnt make it right. Anecdotes tend not to hold up well against scrutiny either."

again, you seem to have some unhealthy focus on "winning" an argument as opposed to exchanging knowledge. i use terms like "generally" and "tend to" because they're brief terms used to accurately describe a more complex system. i'm not using them as slippery techinique to make it harder for you to "win" a debate, and if thats the way you think, you might want to re-evaluate your goals. doug, you might understand my methods is better if you simply asked about it, instead of you telling ME what MY method is and criticizing it. this is a variation of the "straw man" high school debate team cheapshot method, where the guy doesn't feel confident to actually find out what the other guys rationale is, and debate it on it's own merits, and instead invents a badly flawed method/argument, somewhat that looks somewhat similar to what the other guy is talking about, and then rips it apart.

36

"however, this is an interdisciplinary field (new sport, borrowing training concepts from numerous other sports) "

We have been discussing terms like 'compound' and 'overtraining.' These are standardized across all sports. We are borrowing no terms, regardless of the 'youth' of combat sports.

"there are several different forms of overtraining, and simply overtraining a particular muscle to the point where it's not getting stronger IS a very legitimate kind of overtraining, and that was the terminology used by the trainier (an experienced and published guy)."

This is what i've been talking about. There are several symptoms of overtraining. Whether or not there are different 'kinds' of overtraining is nothing factual and shouldnt be stated factually, which is what you have done. I can't say it any other way. If that's how some author said it, then please let me know who (or please provide some quotes with the name of the author) so i can work it out for myself. I would appreciate it.

"doug, you're smarter than that. a lot of these things were obvious from the context"

If they were obvious i wouldnt have asked.

"my goal was to learn as much i could, not to somehow "beat" someone with high school debate team tactics."

I presume you are infering that i am trying to "beat" you? If by "beat" you mean 'call you on your questionably "factual" statements' then yes, i am trying to do that.

"you have a keen eye for weaknesses (or apparent weaknesses) in other peoples arguments."

Keep this quote in mind for a later point i want to make.

"from the pattern of your arguments, it's starting to look like you're one of those guys who is only interested in tearing down other peoples statements."

No, that's not ALL i'm interested in. But you dont have to take my word for it. Feel free to solicit some testimonials from anyone on here, Kenny, Keith, Mark D. or whoever and find out if that's all i'm interested in. You claim that i am using "cheap" tactics and then you hint at your opinions of me personally? LOL. I think you're mistaken about which of us is using cheap tactics. If you doubt my willingness to contribute useful discussion, you have more than enough resources to find out the truth for yourself.

"you've been repeatedly invited to add something useful in terms of genuine training method, and you've repeatedly refused."

And i've repeatedly asked you what precisely you were asking about. But that is more beside the point, considering i'm not debating your methods. Remember that quote i asked you to remember earlier? Keep remembering it as it relates to your quandry here as well.

"you explicitly mentioned that you weren't putting things out there because it made it harder to argue against you effectively"

I dont really know what you mean here, but, speaking of straw men, my best guess is that you are using one here.

"yes, this is a highly effective high school debate team tactic for "winning" an argument, but a poor method for genuinely sharing knowlege. "

Again, you mistake my intentions. Keep on keeping that quote in mind.

"an internet argument, there often no winners, just a bunch of f*ck'n LOSERS! :)"

And yet i've learned alot here over the years, and i think others have learned from me.

"if you read my posts more carefully, you might have realized that these weren't just my personal "anecdotal" opinions."

As soon as Santana claims that compound exercises are better than isolations, and then creates an argument that works against that same claim, i'll call him on it. Don't worry, i'm not shy.

"no, the faux-socratic method BS isn't really helping."

What's a "faux-socratic method," and in what way am i using it?

"if you don't understand it, read it again or ask more relevant questions, and maybe you will understand my statements."

I'll do my best, thanks.

-doug-

37

"this is exactly a point i made earlier, but you're a little limited in your conclusions."

And yet you still believe that compound exercises are 'generally' better than isolations, despite the fact that you yourself believe that compounds are 'generally' damaging to performance for extended periods of time in many athletes while isolations are still benefitial to performance. Again, i don't think i can make it any more clear. Your argument supports the fact that isolations are better in many common situations, and compounds are useful in many other common situations. It does not support the superiority of one of the other, 'generally' or otherwise.

Oh, and is this is not a strawman or any version of one, if this is what you are refering to.

Here's an example of a good argument refering to compound exercises vs. isolations: Compound exercises yield a greater hormonal response of most anabolic hormones in the body than do isolations done at similar intensity (using the typical scientific definition here, which is a percentage of maximum effort) and for a similar amount of time.

Notice in the above argument, i dont use any shakey qaulifiers like 'generally' or 'better' since these qualifiers (by nature) make topics debatableand sometimes a matter of opinion. Since greater anabolic hormone output is often the goal of exercise, many people prefer the use of compound exercises over isolations, however, given the countless variables that require consideration when choosing one or the other (not the least of which you have presented yourself) it is a poor position to take to claim that one is better than the other. Indeed, i've given a likely example in which we can agree that isolations are the best bet for performance enhancement. This is why your position: 'compounds are generally better' stands on too shakey a ground to base a philosophy on, let alone a methodology, nor can it easily be tested, whereas a position like 'compounds yield a greater anabolic hormone response' is not shakey, and it is easily subject to testing.

"the big compound exercises tend to produce a lot of benefits that small isolated muscle exercises don't "

I agree. And, like we both agree, isolations have many benefits that compounds don't. Does it make sense to claim that 'isolations are generally better than compounds?' Nope. (You go on to say something similar, so why you still think that compounds are 'better,' if indeed you still do, is beyong me.)

"thats WHY i use the terminology like generally and "tend to", because those are the most accurate terms to briefly describe a more complex scenario. they're not debate team doubletalk but they are accurate."

Uhh.... they aren't "accurate" at all, and this assertion seems very bizarre to me. In fact, 'general' and 'accurate' are antonyms. That's precisely the problem. Unless you can use accurate terms to describe you 'factual' claims, that should be a red flag to you that they arent facts at all.

"again, you seem to have some unhealthy focus on "winning" an argument as opposed to exchanging knowledge."

And I could say that you have an unhealthy inability to admit when you've 'lost,' but that wouldnt make me right :) (this is a joke.)

"i use terms like "generally" and "tend to" because they're brief terms used to accurately describe a more complex system."

And just like the last quote, saying it twice doesnt make true.

"i'm not using them as slippery techinique to make it harder for you to "win" a debate, and if thats the way you think, you might want to re-evaluate your goals."

I believe you. But be aware that expressing opinions as factual statements does not make them factual statements. In a debate your facts need to be facts. This isn't for winning, it's for making a discussion discussable :)

"doug, you might understand my methods is better if you simply asked about it, instead of you telling ME what MY method "

Alright. Remember in my last post when i asked you to keep all of those points in mind because i'd elucidate myself later? Well now is the time. Your quote here makes it more clear to me why you think i'm trying to "win" or why you may be confused at what i'm trying to do here.

I'm not debating your methods. I'm debating a few of your claims which are false (or in the very least either not immediately self evident, or later contradicted by your own arguments). Again, you claim i'm using a variation of a strawman, but be aware that stating that i am making claims about your methods is a considerable strawman. We haven't discussed your methods in the least. You've given me a possible glimpse at your methodology (not your methods) with a few shakey conclusions founded on contradictory premises. It's these conclusions and premises i'm debating.

Hopefully that makes it a little more clear.

-doug-

38

sorry, i hope nobody is offended, this is just a "rough and tumble" debate between 2 guys who respect eachother. neither of us is taking it too personal, we both actually enjoy this type of stuff :)

39

Gannon is right in his last post. And yes, that's Sean.

Amyway. Contribute away.

-doug-

40

For what it is worth, readers should applaud this since verisimilitude (sp) appears to actually be the object of the adversarial approach being taken here. Nice job on keeping the quantity of blatant ad hominems to a minimum also.

ttt