Unpopular S&C Beliefs

You can get very athletic, strong, explosive and fast by using bodyweight and no more than 20 lbs. I know a guy that uses no more than 8lbs for years now (cause he told me), and he's a physical freak. He is a real good baseball player and ran track. He's untrained in mma and could probably walk in most gyms and literally manhandle people.
That last part is horse shit dude. I'm not very good at BJJ but I could always dominate bigger, much stronger guys that were just coming in for the first time. Techniques and positional awareness are super important in BJJ/MMA.
 
That last part is horse shit dude. I'm not very good at BJJ but I could always dominate bigger, much stronger guys that were just coming in for the first time. Techniques and positional awareness are super important in BJJ/MMA.

That's ok if you think I'm wrong. But I'm confident of it and I'm not joking.
 
I can't really think of anything.

The closest thing would be differing opinions on coaching the lifts. But nothing interesting like saying you can get better at sprinting by only squatting. Or something else provocative.

On the note of sport specific training being paramount, I definitely agree.
The kayakers I work with spend 9/10ths of their training time in the water. Perhaps three hours in the gym total not in race season .
 
I can't really think of anything.

The closest thing would be differing opinions on coaching the lifts. But nothing interesting like saying you can get better at sprinting by only squatting. Or something else provocative.

On the note of sport specific training being paramount, I definitely agree.
The kayakers I work with spend 9/10ths of their training time in the water. Perhaps three hours in the gym total not in race season .

I agree sport specific training is the best, lots of people though dont have the time or other resources to simply train their sport more. Some guys dont have the option of specific training at all.

When I was getting ready for my first climbing trip to the Himalayas, I was working in beijing....theres no mountaineering in beijing so I had to just GPP it up....like 4-5 hours a day. It worked fine. Would climbing smaller mountains and practicing the exact skill work better???....yes. But it wasnt an option.

But yes, I agree, more BJJ or (insert sport) will help your (insert sport here) more than running and lifting will but again, not all guys who do these sports are in it to be the very best they can be. Another example, I like boxing, I like it a lot, could I do it 6 days a week? yes...would it make me better? yes. But I would have to sacrifice lots of other things that I like and now that I'm 35 The chances of me doing anything more than some hard sparring or smokers is just not going to heppen so no reason to make sacrifices at this time.
 
Bench is the most important lift in BJJ.
 
Mike boyle is actually a brilliant coach and his books/seminars are great.
 
Miaou mentioned what I think is the granddaddy:

Different people respond extremely differently to exercise. For example, some kids will stretch for a couple weeks and have noticeable improvements in flexibility; some kids will stretch for months with very small results that will be lost almost immediately when they stop stretching. The range of how much people respond to different types of exercise is pretty big.

There is a huge genetic component in athletic performance. Huge. Most coaches tend to overlook that fact because it's not politically correct and it also doesn't benefit their "business". Basically, the best way to "create champions" is good scouting.

This view is remarkably unpopular. And yet supported by so much evidence: experimental evidence of people with different starting endowments; different levels of response to training; endless research about the necessity of certain body-types/shapes to reach elite level in a sport; identification of specific genes or sets of genes that are highly associated with sports performance; the massive contribution that crude characteristics can make in some sports, like good eyesight in baseball and tennis, and height in basketball; obvious things like the difference in muscle fiber composition and even gender (which is after all a genetic endowment) and so on and so on.

And yet when you watch TV coverage of sports, the idea that the people you are watching almost certain do have a superior genetic endowment is rarely mentioned and it is it is squelched- it is only about hard work and dedication (not that those factors aren't incredibly important too). Everyone loves the idea that anyone at all can reach elite level in any sport if they just work hard enough- I think it suits coaches but also resonates with something in US culture, some idea that everyone has equal opportunities and the only thing that explains actual difference in outcome is effort. Apparently, for a while in the US it was difficult even to get public funding for research into genetic contributors to athletic performance.
 
As many reps as possible on the last set is the greatest thing to happen to beginner programming since Starting Strength. Varying reps on any given day while having a minimum standard (5 reps) is a great way to account for good/bad days while introducing more volume; and they make reset periods far more meaningful than simply repeating a given weight again.

I agree with Rippetoe's stance that giving beginners too many variables is ungood, but letting them set rep max records is incredibly valuable and does not confuse things.


I don't think this is "unpopular" in the sense that people don't agree, more that it is unpopular in the sense that it is an incredibly under utilized concept in beginner training.

PS: I don't consider 531 a beginner programme
 
Miaou mentioned what I think is the granddaddy:



This view is remarkably unpopular. And yet supported by so much evidence: experimental evidence of people with different starting endowments; different levels of response to training; endless research about the necessity of certain body-types/shapes to reach elite level in a sport; identification of specific genes or sets of genes that are highly associated with sports performance; the massive contribution that crude characteristics can make in some sports, like good eyesight in baseball and tennis, and height in basketball; obvious things like the difference in muscle fiber composition and even gender (which is after all a genetic endowment) and so on and so on.

And yet when you watch TV coverage of sports, the idea that the people you are watching almost certain do have a superior genetic endowment is rarely mentioned and it is it is squelched- it is only about hard work and dedication (not that those factors aren't incredibly important too). Everyone loves the idea that anyone at all can reach elite level in any sport if they just work hard enough- I think it suits coaches but also resonates with something in US culture, some idea that everyone has equal opportunities and the only thing that explains actual difference in outcome is effort. Apparently, for a while in the US it was difficult even to get public funding for research into genetic contributors to athletic performance.

Do you know of anywhere that does DNA profiling to figure out what sports you are best suited for? Obviously there are labs that let you know your predisposition to certain diseases, I wonder if there are any that can analyze muscle fibre composition, mitochondrial factors etc to ascertain which sports your biology would allow the highest performance in.

Obviously there are markers in anthropometry for certain applications, but it would be good to know if your biology suits endurance, power or strength. This would be especially useful in combat sports because you can tailor your style to suit your strengths. Obviously these factors would exclude you from high-level performance in some sports completely.

If it turned out that I was extremely well suited to endurance sports and not power-based sports, I could use that information to inform my tactical approach to BJJ and perhaps play a slow, grinding game where I outlast my opponents. Luckily BJJ is a sport where there are multiple approaches and ways to win that facilitates this.
 
The AIS (australian institute of sport) has done something like that, just not on the DNA level (yet). They used to go to high schools across the country and scout people. If they scored well across a battery of tests (anthropometry, beep test, vertical jump, agility) they'd be progressed to another stage of testing, then directed to the AIS to see mould them into an athlete in a given sport. Similarly, there was a group of netballers (i think) years ago who were transformed into rowers because they had huge lung capacity, long arms and good upper body strength. I believe they medalled at one of the Olympics.
 
Do you know of anywhere that does DNA profiling to figure out what sports you are best suited for?

Yeah, I've heard of services in the US to test for a couple of genes. IIRC there is one that almost all elite sprinters have, the test is very popular. But I believe the vast majority of helpful or necessary endowments aren't programmed by a single gene, and in these cases they don't know exactly what to test for. Mostly people are inferring a genetic basis indirectly, e.g. because the the driver is body shape, or a characteristic like eyesight. Also from controlled studies where groups of people are given identical exercise regimes and respond very differently.
 
Continuing with the genetics talk, many top level programs that have the clout to scout far and wide do test for genetic factors at a very young age. There's tons of documentation on the Chinese scouting future olympians as young as 4 years old. Here's what their test battery looks at (from lifthard.com)

1. Parents height and muscularity.

2. Blood type and muscle type. More white or red fibers.

3. Jumping height, distance and reversal speed (how fast they bounce out from landing).

4. General strength level.

5. Skin type.

6. Attitude

7. The size of their testicles

8. IQ level.

9. Flexibility

10. Kinesthesis ability
 
Last edited:
Mike boyle is actually a brilliant coach and his books/seminars are great.

Ehhhhhhh


The same Mike Boyle who says that aerobic system training is useless for hockey players, and then in his program layout for hockey, the first method is.....tempo intervals.

Which is for training the aerobic system.

I'm sure he's pretty decent at putting together programs and adjusting for athletes, but I don't think he knows how to analyze a text well at all, which is kind of important for reading about other coach's methods, and he thinks he literally invented being a strength and conditioning coach.
 
As many reps as possible on the last set is the greatest thing to happen to beginner programming since Starting Strength. Varying reps on any given day while having a minimum standard (5 reps) is a great way to account for good/bad days while introducing more volume; and they make reset periods far more meaningful than simply repeating a given weight again.

I agree with Rippetoe's stance that giving beginners too many variables is ungood, but letting them set rep max records is incredibly valuable and does not confuse things.


I don't think this is "unpopular" in the sense that people don't agree, more that it is unpopular in the sense that it is an incredibly under utilized concept in beginner training.

PS: I don't consider 531 a beginner programme

Agreed. If I had followed GSLP as my novice program, I feel like i would have literally hit my current PR's 6 months to a year earlier, and would have had a much smoother transition into using 5/3/1 and Juggernaut(juggernaut being my favorite program so far in terms of recovery and variety)
 
Yeah, I've heard of services in the US to test for a couple of genes. IIRC there is one that almost all elite sprinters have, the test is very popular. But I believe the vast majority of helpful or necessary endowments aren't programmed by a single gene, and in these cases they don't know exactly what to test for. Mostly people are inferring a genetic basis indirectly, e.g. because the the driver is body shape, or a characteristic like eyesight. Also from controlled studies where groups of people are given identical exercise regimes and respond very differently.

Fuckin' Gattaca up in this bitch.
 
THere a pro, maybe EX pro Cyclist named Santiago Botero, he rode for the Kelme team in several TDF and one day classics in europe.

He made a career at the absolute peak of the sport of professional cycling but started riding later in life. He was actually a footballer (soccer). HE was on vacation in venezuela and decided to rent a bike to ride up a local mountain.

LAter in the day, he was drinking a beer and talking about his nice day of riding, some local said: how long did it take you to get to the top??? BOtero said: it took me xx:xx, the lcal said: thats funny because the world record is xx:xx held my none other than eddy merckx....

So Botero did it again with people followin him in a car watching...

HE became one of the premier level A grade cyclists in the European peloton, basically a dream job and a millon a year for riding a bike.

Its interesting to think about how many lance armstrongs are out there who are chugging natty ice in front of the tv when they could actually do something and do it well.

On a triathon form I was a member of they had a thread that was like "before and after you got into triathlons". there was one in particular of a guy who must have weighed 350lbs, just a total fat ass, not a muscular guy at all, a total blob. his after picture was him finishing the Hawaii Ironman in like 9:10...literally less than 30 minutes behind the pros during one of the hottest windiest race days in history. out of 3000 people, he was like 35th....and a lean mean 5'10, 150lb guy.

He had it all along but he had to want it and find the motivation in himself to do it. I wonder how many guys out there could really put a mark in the books if they had the motiation...
 
THeres also epigenetics which is another interesting tpic all its own. Meaning that often times what a parent does can in fact transfer to the children not genes but actual physical changes that happen with the parents.

Joe rogan was recently talking about watching his 8 year old daughter pull great BJJ moves on her friend while just playing around.

My dad was a stud athlete, I think Im good at sports but my dad was the man, running back at Michigan state Uni, army ranger baseball player, played competetive hockey into his 50s, deadlifs more than me, at 63 still runs like 10k a day. I probably got some if it from him.

A bit of a twist to the story though is that my dad was born with polio in 1951, had early treatments that left him deaf in one ear, he started working out to help his balance, his father also had him help with extra farm work to strengthen his crippled legs. Eventually he turned into a well develped guy who played football at 6"4 240lbs and pretty lean and made it to a very high level as well as an elite army unit. Al from a crippled kid.

He still deads over 500 and is able to get out and do solid runs and bowhunt all day long. People that meet him think he's in his mid 40s even thouth he's in his 60s. and from where he started, its pretty impressive IMO.
 
THere a pro, maybe EX pro Cyclist named Santiago Botero, he rode for the Kelme team in several TDF and one day classics in europe.

He made a career at the absolute peak of the sport of professional cycling but started riding later in life. He was actually a footballer (soccer). HE was on vacation in venezuela and decided to rent a bike to ride up a local mountain.

LAter in the day, he was drinking a beer and talking about his nice day of riding, some local said: how long did it take you to get to the top??? BOtero said: it took me xx:xx, the lcal said: thats funny because the world record is xx:xx held my none other than eddy merckx....

So Botero did it again with people followin him in a car watching...

HE became one of the premier level A grade cyclists in the European peloton, basically a dream job and a millon a year for riding a bike.

Its interesting to think about how many lance armstrongs are out there who are chugging natty ice in front of the tv when they could actually do something and do it well.

On a triathon form I was a member of they had a thread that was like "before and after you got into triathlons". there was one in particular of a guy who must have weighed 350lbs, just a total fat ass, not a muscular guy at all, a total blob. his after picture was him finishing the Hawaii Ironman in like 9:10...literally less than 30 minutes behind the pros during one of the hottest windiest race days in history. out of 3000 people, he was like 35th....and a lean mean 5'10, 150lb guy.

He had it all along but he had to want it and find the motivation in himself to do it. I wonder how many guys out there could really put a mark in the books if they had the motiation...

This is a great counter point to the genetics talk, where you usually see people citing poor genetics as a barrier to success. I believe that genetic advantages absolutely play a huge part at the top levels. Most people just assume they aren't gifted, when it may easily be buried under 50 lbs of fat and 10 years of being sedentary.

The best diamonds look like hunks of shit until they're refined. So many people assume they're destined to be a hunk of shit rather than making the effort to refine themselves into something amazing. That's true of any walk of life, not just sports.
 
Back
Top