Hi, everyone.
This is the voice version of the GUS article
"Why Fitness, Diet, Bodybuilding, and Strength
Training Programs Work."
I've never seen a strength training or bodybuilding
program developed for a mass audience that
didn't "work".
No matter how ridiculous the program is and
how unfounded its principles all such programs
tend to be seen as largely successful.
Now, I know what you're thinking" It becomes
popular because it works.
But, I'm not only talking about popular and
profitable "brands" of programs.
No, I'm talking about programs that are only
known to a tiny corner of the internet, on
some forum or site, perhaps.
There may be 100 people who try it, and they
all say it works great!
As long as, of course, the author has some
authority in that little corner of the internet.
Surely, though, silly programs should get
such authors called out.
A silly program founded on hot air should
not work.
So, how can so many of these programs, then,
be seen as successful?
The same question can be asked of all...of
all the successful diet and fitness programs
out there.
Obviously, I wouldn't frame these questions
if I didn't think I had some fairly good ideas
as to at least some of the reasons.
I think part of it is that we're looking to
specialists for strength training programs
or diets.
Once upon a time the world did not need specialists
to the degree it does now.
Most every human being had the basic skills
of survival.
Sure there were still "roles" that certain
members of a group would be given, you know,
by convention but the roles were simple and
there weren't so many of them.
Now, if your mother in law has trouble with
her new DVD player, you're more likely to
attribute that trouble to her lack of familiarity
with modern technology than to any defects
in the product.
It is her failure to understand what is to
you a simple device.
But is it simple?
Could the fault lie in the product?
Is it, maybe, more complex than it needs to
be?
Probably not, but the point is most people
would never consider the possibility.
It's a "common sense" attribution.
DVD players are "everyday" items and failures
to understand them suggests a lack of common
sense.
Most people you know never report problems
controlling their DVD player.
Since your mother in law USUALLY has trouble
with technology you automatically attribute
the problem to her.
And, of course, in this case, your attribution
is most likely correct.
But, when it comes to strength training and
bodybuilding programs that are published in
books or famous on the internet, we see some
problems with this type of attribution.
We are told to just "pick a program" and follow
it like the owner's manual of that DVD.
If the program then fails to produce results,
the failure is attributed to us rather than
the program.
WE failed to follow the instructions, or to
comprehend them.
The fitness culture tends to attribute success
and lack of success to the individual.
Lack of motivation, lack of adherence, lack
of understanding and more vague concepts such
as "doing too much" or "doing too little."
Part of the outcome of this is that people
tend to report success but not failure.
And we don't go looking for these reports
but we simply rely on the relative abundance
of self-reports of success.
Since they are so abundant by comparison,
the few reports of failure can be easily written
off.
I've even heard such statements as "a crappy
program done with the right attitude is better
than a good program done with a bad attitude."
It's hardly a scientific argument since 'attitude'
is not an easily defined concept.
Yet, we can see how bad programs can be defended
on a vague basis.
To me, that is like telling someone that if
they beat their head against a wall with a
positive attitude that will work better than
stopping short of the wall with a negative
attitude.
And, in fact, people do fail to adopt the
proper attitude when entering a new training
program.
But in such cases they would adopt a poor
attitude with ANY new program.
Probably, just telling someone to improve
their attitude will have little effect on
their attitude!
Also, such statements rely on ideas about
general attitude and fail to consider the
importance of specific attitude.
A trainee may have a positive and enthusiastic
attitude towards "strength training" and "hard
work" but have a more negative attitude toward,
for instance, low reps.
So, a trainee who is convinced that anything
under eight reps will fail to produce results
will not be swayed by statements such as "you're
unwilling to lift heavy enough".
And his underlying specific attitudes towards
the parameters employed WILL affect his results.
But since there is no one there or no one
who is willing to explain these parameters
in a way which will positively affect his
attitude toward them, he is left to his own
responses.
And which came first?
The "attitude" or the program?
I have never encountered anyone who writes
programs for general consumption who considered
the impact of that program on a trainee's
psyche.
Given that there is no way that one program
and its plan of progression can possibly fit
every trainee, then it's easy to imagine that
an inappropriate program could lead to a "bad
attitude.
Perhaps the loading is too aggressive.
Or volume is ramped too quickly: It's too
"intensive."
Or, perhaps the writer failed to mention how
other fitness goals could impact the effect
of a resistance training program.
Yeah, that's the fault of the program as well.
There is more to resistance training than
just resistance training.
Everybody from the elite Olympic athlete to
the common gym rat believes that success depends
on a certain amount of volume and intensity
in the training regimen and that without it
one is simply not training hard enough.
So what I'm saying is that there is a big
psychosocial influence at work here.
We let social conventions drive our individual
training without any thought as to whether
the results will be better performance or
worse.
When we speak of attitudes however, we fail
to recognize that there is a point of contention
between the models we use to write programs
and the effect of an individual's attitude
on their outcome.
That is, these models DO NOT CONSIDER the
contribution of the individuals disposition,
as I'll show later.
Mundane training affects us as well.
Doing the same thing day in and day out with
the same parameters is not conducive to an
enthusiastic and positive outlook to training.
We are so apt to blame trainees but once they
adopt a program they have no one but themselves,
most of the time.
They don't have a supportive trainer or coach.
Or an experienced buddy.
If they do seek out help on the internet,
they're invariably told to work harder or
follow the directions.
This is hardly helpful at all since, much
of the time, to their mind they HAVE been
working hard and they HAVE been following
directions.
Strength and bodybuilding programs are like
popular diets.
We've been socially conditioned to think that
if they fail it is our fault.
The training program is a stress or stressor.
All individuals do not respond to the same
stressor in the same ways.
That in itself should be enough to dissuade
you from recommending the same program to
every resistance trainee who asks or from
adopting the program that is the most popular
or "hardcore," but I'll assume you need more
convincing.
Traditionally, there have been two basic ways
that researchers look at the effects of a
prolonged stressor, such as our training program.
And, the difference between these ways may
not be apparent at first glance.
Ah, these ways are the stimulus oriented,
or stimulus-event oriented; and response oriented.
The latter was the model, response orientation,
was the model developed by physiologist Walter
Cannon.
And, later that was also further developed
by Hans Selye, who, at first, had seen stress
as a stimulus, but later he started viewing
it as a response.
First, we'll talk about the stimulus oriented
model of stress.
The stimulus oriented model of stress assumes
that an organism has an innate ability to
withstand a certain amount of stress.
When the stressors are greater than that organism's
ability to withstand them, then "balance"
is upset and so the organism deteriorates
physically and psychologically.
Cannon defined this balance as homeostasis,
which is basically an organism's ability to
maintain it's systems within certain functional
parameters.
And, stressors are any demands, internal or
external, which upset homeostasis, thus requiring
some action to restore it.
To develop this model, researchers like Cannon
and Selye used animal studies.
And, they subjected animals to various stressors
and then measured their physiologic responses.
And, these results they then extrapolated
to human beings.
So, organisms were therefore seen as somewhat
static with no control over the stressors
which simply ACT on that organism.
So, this is more like an engineering concept
on those grounds.
And, the word homeostasis comes from the Greek
word for "standing still."
Ah, there can be no doubt as to the value
of these models, but I wanted you to keep
in mind that when someone refers to the "Grandaddy
Laws" of resistance training, those laws basically
see you as a living piece of lumber!
You either adapt..or you die.
You know, I don't claim to know whether Friedrich
Nietzsche was aware of these theories but
you can see how this gave rise to such simplistic
notions in the world of strength training
as "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger."
That is not to say that these notions aren't
of great value.
However, they are NOTIONS, not LAWS.
The word law used in regards to training should
immediately put you on guard.
Later on, these earlier stimulus oriented
models were built on and the response-oriented
model was produced.
These models are a bit more subtle.
Whereas the earlier theories focus on the
stressors as "actors" and then measured the
results of those stressors on an individual,
response-oriented models look at an individual's
response to those stressors and the level
of disorganization or maladaptive behavior.
So, the stressors themselves are not deemed
to have any power to produce stress, but,
stress is instead seen as intrinsic.
In other words, it's how you REACT to the
environment that produces "stress" and it
is your individual state, your personality,
your fitness, etc., that determines this.
Now, you can begin to see how attitude may
be a factor in determining how we should train,
and not just a factor in our success or failure
with a particular regimen.
But it goes further because both of these
models, although important, have been found
to be inadequate.
There is just way too much variation in individual
responses to stress.
So attention has shifted from either the stressors
or the responses to a persons interaction
with the environment.
The working assumption is that a person has
certain characteristics which influence his
response to the stimulus of the environment.
The most prevalent model based on this assumption
is the "transactional model of stress and
coping," developed by Lazarus and Folkman.
A major assumption of this model is that there
is a transaction between a person and his
or her environment.
So, a person is not only influenced by his
environment but influences it in turn.
A second important assumption is that a person's
cognitive and emotional resources define the
stress.
A person first appraises the stress and then
reacts to it based on individual resources.
What this all means and how it is any different
may be a bit hard to grasp at first.
So, I'll try to bring it down to Earth just
a little bit.
Let's say something happens to someone.
That person responds to that event.
Based on the way that person responds we determine
that they are "under stress."
So, you see, it's response-oriented, ah, like
I explained before.
Now suppose that we ASK that person about
his or her level of stress.
I'll describe a personal example.
I am actually a very introverted person, but
I am not uncomfortable in small groups of
people that I know fairly well.
As an introvert, I don't always enjoy small-talk
and I tend to listen more than I speak, despite
what it may seem like from these videos.
So in social gatherings you might find me
sitting quietly and listening to the conversation
going on around me.
My tendency toward quiet reflection sometimes
causes people who don't know me as well to
perceive me as shy...which I am not.
Sometimes this is compounded by the reports
of others who know me better and so tell acquaintances
that I am quiet and introverted.
The perceptions of others based on the words
"quiet" and "introverted" causes a common
understanding.
So sometimes, perhaps out of a sense of altruism
or simply based on their own discomfort, people
say things like "you're awful quiet today"
or, "what's wrong?"
They assume that my not talking is a reaction
to stress!
They may perceive the social environment to
be a stressor and my response to it as an
indication that I am under stress.
Or, they may not perceive an actual stressor
at all and simply assume that 'quiet' is a
signal of stress.
And, I'm forced to respond, of course, that
I'm fine and dandy.
There's nothing wrong and in fact I'm quite
comfortable and content.
So my "self-report" indicates no stress, although
my behavior signals stress to others.
But the only stress I feel on those occasions
is that brought about by such annoying questions!
Can you see, therefore, that simply looking
at a stressor, response, or both, to determine
how much stress an individual is under may
not always be accurate?
Suppose you are doing a certain strength training
program.
If you make progress or fail to make progress
you're forced to look at it in a very simplistic
fashion that limits your coping choices.
You either are under too much stress or under
not enough stress to progress.
Which one?
How do you immediately proceed?
If you assume you haven't done enough it may
be too late by the time you found out you
have done "too much" and over-trained!
I know that all that may seem ridiculous,
simplistic, and even silly to many of you.
But most one-size-fits-all programs MUST deal
with this reality.
So, how do they do this?
Well, they make assumptions about how people
progress.
And, those assumptions are usually derived
to fit the underlying premise of the program
rather than the other way around.
They're based on nothing more than wishful
thinking and a few best guesses about how
an average sampling of an average population
will react to training.
Which fits hardly anyone.
Now, if grounded in at least a little common
sense, we end up with a program that is a
lot like the proverbial broken clock that
manages to be right twice a day.
The problem is, based on all the factors I've
already discussed, we only look at the clock
twice a day and are thus led to faulty conclusions
about it's accuracy.
[passage repeats] I know that all that may
seem ridiculous, simplistic, and even silly
to many of you.
But most one-size-fits-all programs MUST deal
with this reality.
So, how do they do this?
Well, they make assumptions about how people
progress.
And, those assumptions are usually derived
to fit the underlying premise of the program
rather than the other way around.
They're based on nothing more than wishful
thinking and a few best guesses about how
an average sampling of an average population
will react to training.
Which fits hardly anyone.
Now, if grounded in at least a little common
sense, we end up with a program that is a
lot like the proverbial broken clock that
manages to be right twice a day.
The problem is, based on all the factors I've
already discussed, we only look at the clock
twice a day and are thus led to faulty conclusions
about it's accuracy.
Some, realizing this, have gotten a bit confused
and decided that training is therefore all
about perception.
Ah, reactive training and other monickers
have been used to describe the ideas that
have come about from this.
Well, all good training is reactive but it
is also PROACTIVE.
Simply reacting implies that we cannot develop
training models fro...for an individual, and
therefore for ourselves, that make sense.
Unfortunately, popular programs are a lot
like dietary supplements.
They work because people say they work.
We have been socially conditioned to assume
that when a program doesn't work it is our
failing rather than the program.
Much the same conditioning exists in the fat-loss
industry.
I hope I've shown you how not only may it
not be your fault, but the fault of the program,
but, that it may be downright impossible for
one program to work for anyone who tries it.
Remember, a person who wants to help you get
results should not care about being right,
but only about the training being right for
you.
