The Science, Art and Religion of Training

[Guest guest]

Mel it's like you read my mind and then expanded on it. I have

been thinking much the same thing since the debates about HIT vs

Olympic Lifting. However, I also wanted to demonstrate how HIT is a

fairly robust philosophy that can explain anything. So that no matter

what you throw at the Jedis, they will always come back with an answer

that is satisfactory to them, avoiding them having to take an

objective look at other training philosophies. However I was stumped

by the lack of a coherent and consistent HIT philosophy and a lack of

training in natural language logic. Any time you point to something

and ask " Is that what HIT is? " they would always say " Well, it can be

to some people. "

The best I could come up with was:

1. HITers believe HIT is the best system for drug-free genetically ungifted

people to get as strong as they can.

2. much stronger than the strongest HITers (this is a bit of an assumption

since no HITer has to our knowledge competed in a quantified strength sport)

3. All of these athletes must therefore be genetically unusual and chemically

enhanced so their superiority is due to genes and drugs, not training methods.

Therefore, all clean and (self identified) genetically average strength trainers

must use HIT to reach their potential.

Getting back to your point about people's attitudes to exercise

modalitites being like religion. If you ever read any of the rants

on cyberpump.com they sound exactly like people who have converted

religions or renewed their faith.

Last but not least that exchange you just had with Ken O'Neill

re this topic was waaaay over my head - I didn't understand half the

words that weren't stolen from a foreign language. In 2 books or

less is there something i could read to catch up on a bit of the

context?

[Just use any web search facility to look for material on the

subject of philosophy and philosophers, and you will find plenty

of that jargon. You don't have to attend the abstruse courses on

philosophy that some of us had to study at university - and, much

of the time their use is only fun for some of us who may enjoy

intellectual hedonism ( " getting high on thinking " ). Regarding

the use of " foreign " language terms (from Sanskrit, Mandarin,

Korean, Hebrew, etc), you don't really need to bother because a

great deal of the time people use such terminology outside the

world of genuine academic study is to be impress or confuse. Mel Siff]

Lindsey Nottle

Burnaby Canada

[Guest guest]

Dr Siff,

I found your recent posting thought provoking, interesting and

relatively humourous but as is often the case I find myself

disagreeing much (though certainly not all) of what you write.

I certainly agree that many 'guruesque' types seem to have powerful

marketing and sales machines that are not shy at 'shouting from the

rooftops' but does this mean that their claims are false?

Though I will not mention them by name (we all know which you refer

to) I see much sense in many of their 'unproven/unscientific'

theories. On others I will concur with you that the rationalisation

process appears a little 'skewed'.

By the same token, there are many 'validated/scientific' processes

that make less sense and seem weak in comparison to the 'guru's'

techniques.

So who is right? More importantly who is to say what is right?

Certainly science does not have all the answers (or at least, we have

yet to understand them). If it did, there would be agreement by all

those carrying out similar studies in similar fields. Clearly this is

not the case. There are as many disagreements by those following

the 'scientific method' as there are in the area we are currently

discussing (maybe more).

The great Karl Popper in his theory of falsification said 'it is not

enough that many 'prove' it to be true if just one proves it to be

false' (paraphrased).

I have yet to see 'proof' of falsification of many of the guru's

methods, merely opinion, belief and speculation based upon 'truths'

that are not always proven. What a paradox!

It is clear that you do not approve of the methods promoted by these

guy's and that is fine. We are all entitled to our own beliefs.

However, you should make it clear that these are opinions and beliefs

of your own and not scientific fact. The law of universality is after

all, well, universal!

In your own way Dr Siff, you are a 'guru' to many yourself! This may

or may not surprise you but it's true! Just as there are 'fanatics'

attached to these other guru's so there are to you and similarly they

cry 'my guru can beat up your guru'.

I have always tried to conduct my life as an 'open learning'

experience (as I believe you have) and have benefitted from your

education beyond measure, but I also realise that much education is

about 'frames of reference' and that my own frame may not be ready

for the picture currently within view.

Please do not discard information (or encourage others to do so)

merely because it does not fit the frame that you have built.

Respectfully,

Dax Moy

London

[Guest guest]

Carl Sagan offered a most appropriate saying which applies very well to that

host of uncorroborated and prominently marketed ideas and methods that we

find in the fitness, sports, health and therapeutic industries today:

" Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "

Nuff said!

Dr Mel C Siff

Denver, USA

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff, responding to Ken O'Neill's 'Eastern' jargon:

<Actually I thought that the notion of SuperTrainers comes far closer to the

conceptual nuomenological paradigm of rauchian, goliards or rifu san

manifesting ch'un mo in dialectic transcorporeal expression of the fa shen or

chen jen. Then again, it may also be synonymously similar and pednamenistically

close to a psychophysiological variant of Idra Zutta Kadishah of sentient

geno-cybernetic anthropologically apparent evictees from the gevurah or

shemittah.

But, who knows..... >

Bravo! I must add this to my collection of guru speak.

Gerald Lafon

**************************

* Judo America San Diego

* Email: glafon@...

* Web: http://www.judoamerica.com

* Phone: (619) 232-JUDO

**************************

[Guest guest]

Dr Siff,

thank you for your rapid response to my last posting on this subject,

as ususal it was eloquently worded (though thankfully, not to the

standard of the off line topic running under this same subject

heading, of which I admit to knowing nothing about).

I decline your friendly challenge to cite particular areas of science

that make little or no sense to me (I concede that this my be due to

lack of understanding in some though not all areas) on the grounds

that I have not the time nor resources to go 'head to head' on

journal quoting. I have no doubt whatsoever that if it came to this,

you would 'win'.

But at the same time, I do not recognise as relevant that

because 'study A,B and C' have evidence/'proof' within an area then

they must represent fact. Obviously this is not the case. We all know

that all studies have an area of subjectivity inbuilt and that

objectivity is distorted as a result.

'Evidence' as quoted in websters is 'an outward sign or indication'.

Yet all too often evidence is being used to mean 'fact'.

This is what I was getting at when I spoke about frames of reference.

Frames of reference change all the time due to increased knowledge

and experience and this is also true within science, or is the world

still flat?

This goes both ways of course, and the 'gurus' are obviously happy to

frame their experiences differently. They also should make clear that

their evidence is maybe not yet at factual status.

Also there is certainly a need for an agreed universal terminology

(that's what a lot of these discussions seem to be about) between

strength, therapy and fitness professionals. They (we) seem to be

communicating in many different languages essentially trying to say

the same thing but arguing over interpretation.

Like it or not Dr Siff, much of what is being promoted by the 'gurus'

is working, scientifically or not! Indeed many areas of physical

therapy and medicine have adopted the systems/processes being used by

these guys.

Are they right? Are they wrong? Who KNOWS?

I'm sure we all have our own views on this but do we really KNOW?

If these guy's are getting results and doing no harm then why waste

time and energy on casting scorn?

[Ever since the beginning of recorded history, various superstitious,

traditional, mystical or shamanistic practices have experienced success

even though the reasons given for this success today look so utterly

misguided, unscientific and incorrect. Thank goodness that science came

along and started debunking many myths. Of course, science and research

still have a long way to go, but at least we are making enormous strides in

understanding. Maybe those " guys " and their disciples (maybe even you)

are satisfied not to dig deeper and understand the underlying mechanisms,

" just because they seem to work " , but there are many of us who demand

a great deal more. If some scientists had not " wasted " their time to " cast

scorn " (i.e. critically and objectively analyse), we would still be believing

that the earth is at the centre of the solar system, that man could never fly,

that disease is caused by evil spirits, that the muscles and brain communicate

by means of fluids circulating around the body, and so on, for thousands of

other examples. Most interestingly, quite a few of those gurus seem to be

modifying their beliefs and methods in response to some of my " scornful "

analysis. Actions indeed speak louder than words! Mel Siff]

The time and energy we are all guilty of spending on this topic could

have been better used finding 'new' or 'improved' ways of doing what

we do - Helping others to improve!

[Read through our archives or my Supertraining textbook and you will find

considerable evidence that some of us most certainly are constantly

improving the science and art of training - far more than all the self-

appointed experts together. Mel Siff]

Time to move on guy's. Show them to be doing harm or leave them be!

[We moved on many years ago, but many of us refuse to accept mythology

and pseudoscience just because it seems to work, whether it be due to placebo,

spontaneous remission, or some mystical mechanism. For all its faults and

falterings, science is a far better option than blind belief and as such,

science

will never simply ignore anyone or anything which makes unsubstantiated

claims on the open market, ones which keep the mind entrapped in the caves

of bygone times. As I have commented many times before " Don't raise targets

if you don't want them to be shot at. " Incidentally, the " Skeptical Inquirer "

magazine is a very useful resource to help one to think more carefully and

rationally, even if it, too, has its own weaknesses. You will gain access to

some of its articles at http://www.csicop.org Another useful web resource is:

http://www.quackwatch.com Mel Siff]

Dax Moy

London

[Guest guest]

Dax Moy wrote:

> But at the same time, I do not recognise as relevant that

> because 'study A,B and C' have evidence/'proof' within an area then

> they must represent fact. Obviously this is not the case. We all know

> that all studies have an area of subjectivity inbuilt and that

> objectivity is distorted as a result.

** Then you might as well reject all scientificly obtained knowledge,

because this is how we " know " things. Granted we often see one

isolated study with a small and biased sample reported in the

mainstream media like it's carved in stone tablets. This is

misleading and irresponsible; but if a result can be replicated

several times we accept it as being true.

> Also there is certainly a need for an agreed universal terminology

> (that's what a lot of these discussions seem to be about) between

> strength, therapy and fitness professionals. They (we) seem to be

> communicating in many different languages essentially trying to say

> the same thing but arguing over interpretation.

** I would say that there is a universal language, the one created by the

scientists. But this language is misused by gurus because of malice and by

the general public because of ignorance.

> Like it or not Dr Siff, much of what is being promoted by the 'gurus'

> is working, scientifically or not!

** Prove it. Please I really mean that.

>Indeed many areas of physical therapy and medicine have adopted the

> systems/processes being used by these guys.

** That proves nothing except that people are bandwagon jumpers.

> Are they right? Are they wrong? Who KNOWS?

> I'm sure we all have our own views on this but do we really KNOW?

** We all do our best, but if we really had as little confidence as you

do in science, then we probably would have given up by now

> If these guy's are getting results and doing no harm then why waste

> time and energy on casting scorn?

** How do we know they are getting results? Just because it seems so to

naked human perception doesn't necessarily mean it is so. One of the

first things you learn in psychology is that extreme cases stick out

in the memory; people are very good at remembering only what they

need to confirm their already held beliefs. For a fuller explanation

I suggest you read Dave Myers' psychology Chapter 1, the first 3

sections

Lindsey Nottle

Burnaby Canada

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff wrote:

<For all its faults and falterings, science is a far better option than blind

belief and as

such, science will never simply ignore anyone or anything which makes

unsubstantiated claims on the open market, ones which keep the mind entrapped in

the

caves of bygone times. As I have commented many times before " Don't raise

targets if you don't want them to be shot at. " Incidentally, the " Skeptical

Inquirer " magazine is a very useful resource to help one to think more

carefully and rationally, even if it, too, has its own weaknesses. You will

gain

access to some of its articles at http://www.csicop.org Another useful web

resource is: http://www.quackwatch.com >

Excellent advice. Please follow the link to quackwatch. This article

is far too extensive to quote.

http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/hiv-aids.html

This is an exhaustive review of the evidence that HIV causes Aids.

Harvey Maron, M.D.

Steamboat Springs, CO

[Guest guest]

Dax Moy wrote:

But at the same time, I do not recognise as relevant

that because 'study A,B and C' have evidence/'proof' within an area

then they must represent fact. Obviously this is not the case. We

all know that all studies have an area of subjectivity inbuilt and

that objectivity is distorted as a result.

Nottle:

Then you might as well reject all scientificly obtained

knowledge, because this is how we " know " things. Granted we often

see one isolated study with a small and biased sample reported in the

mainstream media like it's carved in stone tablets. This is

misleading and irresponsible; but if a result can be replicated

several times we accept it as being true.

Dax Moy

[i accept thi,s but are we to assume that one, two or even

three studies that 'seem' to follow a thread are validation of a

theory? Or do we agree that there is 'evidence' to support a theory?

I myself am unclear on the standards that science place upon

promoting a theory to fact status. I would be grateful if you or our

other readers could help me on this one]

Also there is certainly a need for an agreed universal terminology

(that's what a lot of these discussions seem to be about) between

strength, therapy and fitness professionals. They (we) seem to be

communicating in many different languages essentially trying to say >

the same thing but arguing over interpretation.

Nottle:

I would say that there is a universal language, the one created by

the scientists. But this language is misused by gurus because of

malice and by the general public because of ignorance.

Dax Moy

[First off, 'I would say' is your opinion. Second 'universal

would imply that all are using this language, this is clearly not the

case. Third, 'malice'? Please prove malice on the part of any of

these people. Confusion, ignorance or even 'terminologically

challenged' I can buy, but malice I find offensive without proof]

Like it or not Dr Siff, much of what is being promoted by the 'gurus'

is working, scientifically or not!

Nottle:

** Prove it. Please I really mean that.

Dax Moy

[unfortunately, the hundreds of clients that I work with on a

day to day basis will only count as anecdotal. Professionally, I

understand why you would not be happy to accept this as evidence,

therefore when my current study is complete I will happily share that

information with you]

Indeed many areas of physical therapy and medicine have adopted the

systems/processes being used by these guys.

Nottle:

That proves nothing except that people are bandwagon jumpers.

Dax Moy

[i'm sure that many are but don't governing bodies, medical

practice boards and professional associations have standards of

inclusion and codes of practice for new techniques and procedures or

are they simply allowed to practice what they feel like?]

Are they right? Are they wrong? Who KNOWS? I'm sure we all have our

own views on this but do we really KNOW?

Nottle:

We all do our best, but if we really had as little confidence as

you do in science, then we probably would have given up by now

Dax Moy

[There you go again making personal assumptions! Though you

feel I have little confidence in science and 'the scientific method'.

you know nothing about me or my motives for this dialogue.I am in

fact a huge believer in science. Thats why I question it so much.

Would you rather I simply believe it because of study reports or

because Dr Siff (or you) says so? If this were the case there would

be no need for further studies because we would already have the

answers we desire]

If these guy's (sic) are getting results and doing no harm then why waste

time and energy on casting scorn?

Nottle:

How do we know they are getting results? Just because it seems so

to naked human perception doesn't necessarily mean it is so. One of

the first things you learn in psychology is that extreme cases stick

out in the memory; people are very good at remembering only what they

need to confirm their already held beliefs.

Dax Moy

[Thank you for reinforcing my argument for this whole

discussion! Are not the scientists carrying out these studies 'human'

and percieiving things as they fit their personal frames of

reference?]

Nottle:

For a fuller explanation > I suggest you read Dave Myers' psychology

Chapter 1, the first 3 > sections

Dax Moy

[thank you Lindsey, I will certainly examine this text]

Dax Moy

London

[Guest guest]

> But at the same time, I do not recognise as relevant

> that because 'study A,B and C' have evidence/'proof' within an area

> then they must represent fact. Obviously this is not the case. We

> all know that all studies have an area of subjectivity inbuilt and

> that objectivity is distorted as a result.

Nottle:

> Then you might as well reject all scientificly obtained

> knowledge, because this is how we " know " things. Granted we often

> see one isolated study with a small and biased sample reported in the

> mainstream media like it's carved in stone tablets. This is

> misleading and irresponsible; but if a result can be replicated

> several times we accept it as being true.

Dax Moy

> [i accept this but are we to assume that one, two or even

> three studies that 'seem' to follow a thread are validation of a

> theory? Or do we agree that there is 'evidence' to support a theory?

> I myself am unclear on the standards that science place upon

> promoting a theory to fact status. I would be grateful if you or our

> other readers could help me on this one]

** I don't know either just how many times something has to be duplicated

to be considered almost impossible to be a mistake. There's some

statistical formula that calculates the odds of a result being

duplicated being due to chance alone. After a few replications, the

odds against it being chance rise to something like 1 in 25 000.

Also I think this is only a contentious issue regarding new

dscoveries, because in psychology at least the stuff that's been

around for decades has been replicated 20, 30 or 40 times (grad

students have to keep busy somehow).

Dax Moy:

> Also there is certainly a need for an agreed universal terminology

> (that's what a lot of these discussions seem to be about) between

> strength, therapy and fitness professionals. They (we) seem to be

> communicating in many different languages essentially trying to say

> the same thing but arguing over interpretation.

Nottle:

>

> I would say that there is a universal language, the one created by

> the scientists. But this language is misused by gurus because of

> malice and by the general public because of ignorance.

Dax Moy

> [First off, 'I would say' is your opinion. Second 'universal

> would imply that all are using this language, this is clearly not the

> case. Third, 'malice'? Please prove malice on the part of any of

> these people. Confusion, ignorance or even 'terminologically

> challenged' I can buy, but malice I find offensive without proof]

** Alright you got me there - " I would say " is definitely my opinion. Ok

instead of universal, how about if I said a language that could serve

everyone interested in communicating clearly about exercise, health

etc issues? Finally I stand by the malice bit. Watch any exercise

gadget or diet infomercial and witness enough lies and half truths

and misinformation to fill a whole chapter in facts and fallacies.

> Like it or not Dr Siff, much of what is being promoted by the 'gurus'

> is working, scientifically or not!

Nottle:

> ** Prove it. Please I really mean that.

Dax Moy

> [unfortunately, the hundreds of clients that I work with on a

> day to day basis will only count as anecdotal. Professionally, I

> understand why you would not be happy to accept this as evidence,

> therefore when my current study is complete I will happily share that

> information with you]

>

> Indeed many areas of physical therapy and medicine have adopted the

> systems/processes being used by these guys.

Nottle:

> That proves nothing except that people are bandwagon jumpers.

Dax Moy

> [i'm sure that many are but don't governing bodies, medical

> practice boards and professional associations have standards of

> inclusion and codes of practice for new techniques and procedures or

> are they simply allowed to practice what they feel like?]

** I don't really know much about the world of professional trainers,

physios etc. However as has been pointed out many times on this list

the latest craze of core stability and wobble boards and assorted

toys while used by a large number of trainers has little research to

support its use on healthy trainees.

Dax Moy:

> Are they right? Are they wrong? Who KNOWS? I'm sure we all have our

> own views on this but do we really KNOW?

Nottle:

> We all do our best, but if we really had as little confidence as

> you do in science, then we probably would have given up by now

Dax Moy

> [There you go again making personal assumptions! Though you

> feel I have little confidence in science and 'the scientific method'.

> you know nothing about me or my motives for this dialogue.I am in

> fact a huge believer in science. Thats why I question it so much.

> Would you rather I simply believe it because of study reports or

> because Dr Siff (or you) says so? If this were the case there would

> be no need for further studies because we would already have the

> answers we desire]

** I'm sorry - it seemed like you had no confidence in the ability of

science to produce much of worth

Dax Moy:

> If these guy's (sic) are getting results and doing no harm then why waste

> time and energy on casting scorn?

Nottle:

> How do we know they are getting results? Just because it seems so

> to naked human perception doesn't necessarily mean it is so. One of

> the first things you learn in psychology is that extreme cases stick

> out in the memory; people are very good at remembering only what they

> need to confirm their already held beliefs.

Dax Moy

> [Thank you for reinforcing my argument for this whole

> discussion! Are not the scientists carrying out these studies 'human'

> and percieiving things as they fit their personal frames of

> reference?]

** Of course they are human. But (assuming their research is well

designed) they are measuring the effects of only one variable at a

time. They measure and record objective variables. And they analyse

them statistically. The only room I see for personal frames of

reference to have an effect is in the framing of theories and

hypotheses. The test for these of course is the lab, so that over

time, we hopefully get closer to the truth

--------

Nottle

....City?