toolin, i'm occassionally going back and editing for clarity. i'm listing who said what, eliminating bad copy/paste jobs, and usually annotating that something has been edited, and the time. i also think it's fair to make significant changes for clarity if the post hasn't yet been responded to.
bravo doug! -
but here is a list of a few of the factual and logical errors in your argument.
coach D - "we have been discussing terms like 'coumpond' and 'overtraining'. these are standardized across all sports"
this is blatantly incorrect.
The National Strength and Conditioning Association, Basic Guidelines for Resistance Training of Athletes
ISSN: 1533-4295 Strength and and Conditioning Jounal
Volume: 22, Issue 4
"There are two overtraining scenarios that lifters may fall into: (a) overtraining a muscle group and (b) overtraining the body."
one of the reasons this example is particularly pertinent, is because this is exactly what i was saying before, something you repeatedly stated was incorrect on my part. broaden your reading or broaden your mind.
one of the reasons i was accusing you of using you of using the "straw man" argument, is because you never bothered to actually find out what my argument was, you simply took a couple of statements, COMPLETELY out of context, twisted them into something that obviously contrary to the statement in my post (straw man), and then started quibling terminology.
lets look at what that the controversial post actually said.
SG - "the big coumpound exercises"..." tend to be much to be much more useful than isolated exercises than most sport activities. however this is not the only training principle involved -"
then i proceeded to give a real world example of when they weren't.
i was briefly touching on a much more complex point, but i didn't feel like writing "war and peace". from the context, phrases like "however, there are other training principles involved - ", and especially the example i used, it's obvious that i'm just giving part of a larger argument.
later, doug comes up with his "gotcha, i bet you didn't think of this" counterexample, "proving me wrong". look at the posts, he uses an example of the SAME situation i did. i obviously DID take that into account as part of my larger argument. so much for "contradicting" myself
however, doug kept on taking a few words out of context, telling me what I meant (strawman), without even asking me what my argument was.
here is an (abbreviated version) of my actual point. compound exercises give certain benenfits that isolated exercises don't (this is a premise, not my point, so if this is what you're arguing about, you still don't get it, because it's a seperate argument). in this sense, a lot of coaches consider them a "better" exercise than working an isolated muscle. however, as stated above, there are other training principles involved, and sometimes compounds aren't practical. in this case, you're going to have to use other, more isolated exercises. this doesn't mean that somehow these isolated exercises suddenly start giving you the benefits that compounds do. they don't, but it's better than sitting on your ass. as a practical matter, your routine is going to have both compound and isolation exercises. that is the point i was touching on in that post. i didn't fully expand on this, but what i wrote was accurate. compounds do indeed give benefits that isolations don't and in that sense they are "better". however, there are obviously times when they're not practical, and i outlined one of those in that first post. someone could also say "compounds are better in these situations, isolations are better in these situations". this is also true ("better" can be applied to different objects/ideas in different statements). you can keep arguing at this point, but you're just arguing semantics.
and speaking of semantics -
Coach D - "...'general' and 'accurate' are antonyms"
the way the word was actually used in that sentence, it's "general vs. specific". i couldn't say always, i couldn't say never (they're not accurate), "general" fit a lot better, if you didn't have the time to explain a more complex argument.
as to what "faux-socratic method BS" means - in the spirit of the socratic method, look up the meaning of "socratic method", look up what "faux" means, figure out what BS means, and then look at some of your posts on the previous page :)
i can't wait for the next round!
Sean, I respect and you like you quite a bit, but Doug seems to be completely on point and correct here.
And I'm not just saying that because you are a big mean bully who beat up my hero (Mr. Slice).
Okay, right off the bat....FRAT.
What the hell are your differences? He says peanut butter. He says milk.
What is the main conflict here?
that is exactly my point. we've got the same idea, we're describing the same concept, and he's basicly arguing semantics. he was offended (strongly) by some of my terminology, at least some of which has been shown to be completely accurate and consistent with how published authors in the field use it.
fabes, you are correct, a lot of what doug is saying is absolutely correct. but it's also absolutely irrelevant to my point.
now doug is going to play some debate game where he say's "i actually haven't taken an actual position on anything".
at least one major theme of the argument doug advanced was that - "sometimes isolations are "better", and sometimes compounds are "better". i completely agree. i was never arguing against this. as explained above, that is completely consistent with what i was saying. doug seemed to take serious exception to some of my terminology, BEFORE asking us to "define our terms". that is why it's so important to "define your terms (and actually state your entire argument)" at the beginning of the debate.
"this is blatantly incorrect. "
Is it? More incorrect than saying we are arguing terms that are different because our sport is 'new?'
And for some reason after saying that I'm incorrect you attempt to show that overtraining does have definition that is defineable across sports. Oops.
You follow that up with a quote that supports your point. Excellent! This is what i've been asking you from the beginning to do, and you simply say something akin to "Isn't it obvious?" Well, unfortunately it still isnt. I wonder why your source decides to make such a bold claim? Do they go on to support it in anyway?
Here's some quotes for you:
H Kuipers, HA Keizer. Sports Med. 1988 Aug;6(2):79-92.
"However, the precise mechanism has yet to be established. Clinically the syndrome can be divided into the sympathetic and parasympathetic types, based upon the predominance of sympathetic or parasympathetic activity, respectively. The syndrome and its clinical manifestation can be explained as a stress response. At present, no sensitive and specific tests are available to prevent or diagnose overtraining."
Lehmann, Foster, Keul. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993 Jul;25(7):854-62.
"The symptomatology associated with overtraining syndrome has changed over the last 50 yr from excitation and restlessness (so-called sympathetic form) to phlegmatic behavior and inhibition (so-called parasympathetic form)."
A Urhausen, H Gabriel, W Kindermann. Sports Med. 1995 Oct;20(4):251-76.
"Overtraining is feared by athletes yet there is a lack of objective parameters suitable for its diagnosis and prevention."
MJ Lehmann, W Lormes, A Opitz-Gress, JM Steinacker ... J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1997 Mar;37(1):7-17.
"Overtraining can be defined as "training-competition > > recovery imbalance", that is assumed to result in glycogen deficit, catabolic > anabolic imbalance, neuroendocrine imbalance, amino acid imbalance, and autonomic imbalance... Persistent performance incompetence and high fatigue ratings may depend on impaired or inhibited transmission of ergotropic (catabolic) signals to target organs, such as: (I) decreased neuromuscular excitability, (II) inhibition of alpha-motoneuron activity (hypothetic), (III) decreased adrenal sensitivity to ACTH (cortisol release) and increased pituitary sensitivity to GHRH (GH release) resulting in a counter-regulatory shift to a more anabolic endocrine responsibility, (IV) decreased beta-adrenoreceptor density (sensitivity to catecholamines), (V) decreased intrinsic sympathetic activity, and (VI) intracellular protective mechanisms such as increased synthesis of heat-shock proteins (HSP 70) represent a complex strategy against an overload-dependent cellular damage."
R Budgett. BMJ 1994;309:465-8 (13 August)
"The cause of the overtraining syndrome is not known and there is no diagnostic or warning test... Overtraining is the process of excessive training that leads to the overtraining syndrome, which can be defined as a state of prolonged fatigue and underperformance caused by hard training and competition. There should be an objective measure of the loss of form, which will have lasted at least two weeks despite adequate rest and will have no identifiable medical cause."
I could go on, but why bother? It seems that the sport science community as a whole has deemed that although there seem to be some common systemic symtoms for overtraining, that clumping into two types: local vs. systemic, seems to be jumping the gun a bit, and i agree. This doesnt preclude the possibility (and i didnt say it did), but such a claim cannot currently be made.
"one of the reasons i was accusing you of using you of using the "straw man" argument, is because you never bothered to actually find out what my argument was"
This seems to me to be ad hominem. Would you care to continue throwing accusations at each other?
In my first post I asked you a few questions, and you provided arguments (or made previously unsupported claims). How is that not 'bothering' to find out what your argument is?
cont
"later, doug comes up with his "gotcha, i bet you didn't think of this" counterexample, "proving me wrong". look at the posts, he uses an example of the SAME situation i did. i obviously DID take that into account as part of my larger argument. so much for "contradicting" myself"
Definitely ad hominem. LOL. I guess Magnus was too quick in his praise.
My example (if you made the same example, fine, that's beside the point, there's no need to repeatedly state that you made the same example: I 'heard' you the first time) shows that compounds dont tend to be better. If that's all you mean, then that's what you should say. I can't read your mind.
"however, doug kept on taking a few words out of context, telling me what I meant (strawman), without even asking me what my argument was. "
You repeat this again. So again i say i asked you questions, and you provided your arguments.
"here is an (abbreviated version) of my actual point..."
I understand your point: Compounds are better except when they aren't better. Gotcha. Good point. I, however, don't believe that that makes them any better at all (You can call this a strawman all you want, but it isn't importantly different from the best interpretation of what you are saying).
"the way the word was actually used in that sentence, it's "general vs. specific". i couldn't say always, i couldn't say never (they're not accurate), "general" fit a lot better, if you didn't have the time to explain a more complex argument."
Are you really trying to argue with what i said here? I thought it was funny that you said 'general' was the most accurate term. Sorry for the confusion there. Luckily i provided an example afterward using only precise and measurable terms. It would be nice if you could do the same.
"as to what "faux-socratic method BS" means - in the spirit of the socratic method, look up the meaning of "socratic method", look up what "faux" means, figure out what BS means, and then look at some of your posts on the previous page :) "
Boy do i LOVE ad hominems. Don't you? Certainly makes a debate conclude pretty quick.
I know what the words mean. In fact i've studied the Socratic age philosophers quite extensively. However, you'll have to explain to me how a faux socratic argument is different from an actual socratic argument, because, despite my years of education in philosophy, i just don't know.
"he's basicly arguing semantics."
As if that weren't a worthwhile pursuit. For example, at the start, you were confusing DOMS with overtraining. Debating the meanings of ones words is perfectly helpful, and in fact required for any important debate when two people are using different meanings for the same words.
"now doug is going to play some debate game where he say's "i actually haven't taken an actual position on anything"."
Nice ad hominem attack here too.
I haven't taken any positions on methods or methodologies. Why should I? That's not the debate. That certainly doesn't mean i havent taked any positions.
""sometimes isolations are "better", and sometimes compounds are "better". i completely agree. i was never arguing against this."
My interpretation of a vresion of your argument is as follows (Yes, i know you have worded it differently, but i believe you have accepted every premise and the conclusion, and this way if you see something with which you disagree, you can correct me easily):
P1: Compounds have some advantages over isolations, depending on an athlete's situation.
P2: Isolations have some advantages over compounds depending on an athlete's situation.
P3: There are a vast number of cases in which compounds are contraidicated for improvements in sport performance, because of the athlete's situation while isolations are indicated, even to the degree that isolations could comprise 50% or more of an athlete's program.
C1: Compounds tend to be better than isolations.
Despite your alleged agreement with the premises, P3 drains considerable strength from the C1. We could even add in:
P4: There are a vast number of cases in which compounds are indicated for improvements in sport performance because of the athlete's situation, while isolations are also indicated, but inferior, even to the degree that compounds could comprise 50% or more of an athlete's program.
However, even with P4, C1 does not follow necessarily. You've given us other clues along the way in an attempt to support C1, like:
P5: Many coaches give their athlete's more compounds than isolations.
Although, neither of us knows whether or not P5 is even true, assuming it is, it does not grant C1, but rather something like:
C2: Compounds are more popular than isolations.
We both know, however, that their popularity has little to do with their effectiveness (being 'better').
I propose C3 and C4, as conclusions that do follow from the premesis that i believe you have agreed to already (in previous posts):
C3: The effectiveness, and need for isolations versus compounds in an exercise regimine depends heavily on the athletes skill training, past training sessions, etc. (the athlete's 'situation').
C4: There is insufficient evidence given the premises to conclude that either compounds are 'better' than isolations or isolations are 'better' than compounds, but merely that they are differently indicated.
-doug-
Let's add, for the sake of argument, the following premise:
P6: One of the two (compounds or isolations) should be considered 'better' than the other.
However given P1 - P4 it seems that this premise is contradictory to the argument.
-doug-
You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have...
i rarely have the honor of debating someone as intelligent and knowledgable as Coach Doug, and i apologize if some of my wording seemed too harsh or personal. i genuinely thought i was just matching the tone of Coach D, and be humorous, which does not always come across the right way on the internet. i'll re-read my old posts and see if any more apologies are in order.
SG - "later, doug comes up with his "gotcha, i bet you didn't think of this" counterexample, "proving me wrong". look at the posts, he uses an example of the SAME situation i did. i obviously DID take that into account as part of my larger argument. so much for "contradicting" myself"
Coach D - "Definitely ad hominem. LOL. I guess Magnus was too quick in his praise."
the tone is a little harsh, but it's a legitimate point, and my interpretation of your statements was fairly consistent with the tone of YOUR interpretations of MY posts. this has been a long, complex debate, with a lot of side issues, and i thought it was completely appropriate to give a synopsis of it for clarity.
SG - "now doug is going to play some debate game where he say's "i actually haven't taken an actual position on anything"."
Coach D - "Nice ad hominem attack here too."
a criticism of your debate style and things you had actually posted. you can debate those criticisms on their own merits, but it's not accurate to call this an ad hominem attack.
SG - "as to what "faux-socratic method BS" means - in the spirit of the socratic method, look up the meaning of "socratic method", look up what "faux" means, figure out what BS means, and then look at some of your posts on the previous page :) "
coach d - "Boy do i LOVE ad hominems. Don't you? Certainly makes a debate conclude pretty quick."
you DID make a make a post which can be described as "faux-socratic", the tone of which appeared to be a subtle (but harsh) insult. i called you on it, and you played dumb, which to me confirmed it had been meant as a "put down". this was a multi-layered joke (and put down) about our exchange. not as subtle as yours, but about equal in tone. and criticizing what a person SAYS is not the same as criticizing them personally.
SG -"one of the reasons i was accusing you of using you of using the "straw man" argument, is because you never bothered to actually find out what my argument was"
Coach D- "This seems to me to be ad hominem. Would you care to continue throwing accusations at each other?"
saying it twice doesn't make it true :)
SG - "this is blatantly incorrect. "
Coach D - "Is it? More incorrect than saying we are arguing terms that are different because our sport is 'new?'"
nice try, except that wasn't what i said. if you read my post, i never claimed our new sport was generating new terminology, i stated that we were using terminology from many different disciplines, and that you might not be familiar with every usage of every term in every sport. i felt you were being a little narrowminded about the uses of these terms, and unfairly critical because i was wording things differently from you.
you stated i was incorrect and asked me to show evidence of published authors using these terms the same way i was. i did.
"And for some reason after saying that I'm incorrect you attempt to show that overtraining does have definition that is defineable across sports. Oops."
??????? you questioned my use of the word "overtraining" and the term "overtraining a muscle", saying you would like to see evidence of of published authors using theses terms, which i did. i don't get the "oops".
coacd d - "I wonder why your source decides to make such a bold claim? Do they go on to support it in anyway?"
i gave you the name and issue # of the journal. you're the one that stated you wanted to look it up and read it. go ahead.
"Here's some quotes for you:"
great quotes. however, irrelevant to this particular dispute. i stated that i was using those terms as used by published authors in the field. you said i was wrong and asked for proof. i gave it to you. i never stated that different coaches from different sports use these terms the exact same way - that was your argument. thanks for bringing in quotes to prove it false.
Coach D - "I understand your point: Compounds are better except when they aren't better. Gotcha. Good point."
better at what? better is a comparison, not an absolute. that is why i said it is so important to define your terms in an argument. if someone said that compounds were better at producing favorable hormone levels (the "precise and measurable" statement from your earlier post) and other benefits than isolations, that in no way contradicts someone saying isolations are better at something else. "the compounds are better at providing these benefits (XYZ). however, the hotel gym doesn't have a squat rack, so these isolation exercises are 'better' exercisies for him for the next week." this doesn't mean that mean that isolations somehow magically start producing better benefits than the compounds were doing before. when you're making differnt comparisons, it's "apples and oranges"
Coach D - "I, however, don't believe that that makes them any better at all"
again, better at what?
Coach D -"(You can call this a strawman all you want,"
i'm calling it a strawman
coach D - "but it isn't importantly different from the best interpretation of what you are saying)."
i disagree
Coach D, quoting me - "sometimes isolations are "better", and sometimes compounds are "better". i completely agree. i was never arguing against this."
again, better at what? and don't you feel the least bit guilty about using that quote out of context like that?
SG - "he's basicly arguing semantics."
Coach D - "As if that weren't a worthwhile pursuit."
is it? i've discovered that arguing semantics rarely tells you anything you don't already know, it's just intellectual masturbation.
toolin - "i'm fascinated as i skim though the posts..."
everyone loves a good train wreck! :)
Sean's posts may just be the miracle cure for Insomnia.
this thread has gone from interesting to FRAT-tastic.
ttt
Again, for what it is worth, I want to say that I am impressed with GladiatorGannon and vermonter's discussion.
One has to concede that the guy who entertained many of us in his Kimbo fight is a thoughtful sort. Nice to see.
Rabbit season!