Dear Exodus Forum, well I never thought this would happen to me...
Article Draft: The Three Legged Stool – Why Rulesets Need Complexity
Moderator: Chebass88
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:16 pm
- Age: 57
- tersh
- Registered User
- Posts: 962
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:42 am
- Location: Centrally Located Salt
- Age: 43
Re: Article Draft: The Three Legged Stool – Why Rulesets Need Complexity
I am familiar with this battle. I try to avoid the bidness writing when at all possible, but I deal with city governments and what not, so sometimes it's the right way to present things. One of my self-appointed gigs in the lab has been to make the incredibly academic language of my advisor into something readable by humans. Not always successful, but she has a tendency to recycle things that I've rewritten, so that's a good sign.mgil wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:58 pm Tersh, I appreciate the offer. Right now I’ll focus on the content.
Personally, it’s a struggle between the typical “scientific writing” I do, the high-level “Bidness writing” the bosses want, and a voice that is engaging for a casual reader. As a result, once the content is squared away, a once over for consistency and readability would be awesome.
- broseph
- High Fiber
- Posts: 4940
- Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:11 am
- Location: West Michigan
- Age: 41
Re: Article Draft: The Three Legged Stool – Why Rulesets Need Complexity
Could I be a guest on an upcoming video? You can just talk over me the whole time.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:16 pm
- Age: 57
Re: Article Draft: The Three Legged Stool – Why Rulesets Need Complexity
Can you let us know when you publish the Exodus Style Guide?
Srsly tho, thanks for offering your services. I think having a qualified editor at hand is great and should be taken advantage of.
Srsly tho, thanks for offering your services. I think having a qualified editor at hand is great and should be taken advantage of.
- augeleven
- Registered User
- Posts: 4457
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:47 pm
- Location: 9th level
- Age: 43
- mgil
- Shitpostmaster General
- Posts: 8477
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:46 pm
- Location: FlabLab©®
- Age: 49
Re: Article Draft: The Three Legged Stool – Why Rulesets Need Complexity
*Update*
I added a few words and made some edits. Let me know how it looks. Thanks!
The Three Legged Stool – Why Rulesets Need Complexity
When I was working in the sales industry, I would encounter this “axiom” of the three legged stool. This mythical stool had legs of price, quality, and time. The “axiom” was that you could pick two to improve, but that the third would suffer.
What does this have to do with training? Well it brings me to a well-known model that states criteria of most muscle mass used, over the longest range of motion, with the heaviest weight lifted to determine exercise selection strictly. While I believe these rules are good rules, they are by no means complete as a trainee evolves. Over the course of my training, I’ve had to add to these three. We will get to those in a bit.
The exercise selection itself falls into three general categories of a sitting motion, a pushing motion, and a pulling motion. Respective examples would be squat, bench press, and deadlift. For this article, these categories will be considered as a complete coverage of general purpose strength training movements.
Before you start to analyze my analogy, there isn’t one. It’s just that we like to think in these simple rulesets and 3 is a common number.
But back to these model criteria, do they truly hold?
Maybe…
Here’s an example using the close-grip bench press (CGBP) and the regular bench press (BP). From my own experience, the range of motion (ROM) is about 2” greater on CGBP than BP. My strength deficit is such that I can CGBP about 90% of my BP. That’s about the same as the delta in ROM difference between the two. In other words, I trade a 10% drop in strength for a 10% increase in ROM. Along with the increase in ROM comes an increase in time to move the bar, so things are sort of evened out, at least in my mind. What about muscle mass? Well that’s about the same too, no? I mean, the same groups are involved. However, there is a change in geometry that makes for more work for the triceps and less work for the pectoralis groups, hence the drop in strength. And where does this help? Well it helps when proximal biceps tendons get angry and the CGBP allows one to train a similar movement through a similar ROM, using similar muscle activation, but with less pain and aggravation.
So what?
Well, for me, this allows me to train a lying down press variant more often over the course of the week. And it has tremendous carryover. So now, in essence, I’ve had to introduce extra criteria into my ruleset for exercise selection. They are:
-Similarity to the main lift
-Benefit to the building of overall strength
-Ability to perform with equipment constraints
-Ability to perform without pain or increased risk of injury
-Personal enjoyment
The reasoning behind the first rule is pretty clear. If one is training to display strength in a particular lift, then similarity is necessary, but not always sufficient. That leads to the second rule.
The second rule seems to be redundant of the first rule, but it isn’t. What can be perplexing (at least on the surface) is that a pulling accessory motion like a bent-over row can help build a better bench press. That’s because even though there are the three general categories of lifts, and they cover the domain of general strength well, they are by no means strictly distinct. It’s pretty clear that being a good squatter carries over to the deadlift. Is it as clear that developing a good front squat might help your overhead press? To me it wasn’t at first, but empirically (from my own training and observing others), there is carryover. When the movements are analyzed thoughtfully, there is a plausible argument.
For the third rule, this is something for those of us that lift at home or in a smaller gym. While I’d love to do real hip belt squats on a hip belt machine, that isn’t going to happen given my constraints. Nevertheless, some workarounds can be found. This is also an important point to consider when outfitting a gym. You might want to shell out a few more dollars for that adjustable bench (I wish I did).
The fourth additional rule should also be obvious, but sometimes we are just too stubborn. If a lift is grinding you down and kicking your ass, work around it. Get stronger so you can get back to that lift with confidence. Also, you might want to consider your own training advancement and how frequent some lifts should be performed. That’s a topic for another time.
Finally, the lift should be somewhat fun. In reality, none of this stuff is terribly fun, but your exercise selection should be based on the ability to see success and progress on a lift, in lieu of fun. Being mentally engaged in the process of training is probably the most import aspect to continued success.
Meatloaf – Two out of Three Ain’t Bad?
Let’s head back to the top and think about this now. We have:
-Most muscle mass
-Greatest ROM
-Heaviest weight
But it’s clear that lifts are trading one for the other. The CGBP/BP fits. We traded ROM for weight. Similarly, deficit deadlifts are harder than rack pulls. The issue is that this original trade space is too limited. It’s also potentially wrong.
An Example
It’s evident that sumo has a reduced ROM. However, does that translate to a heavier weight on the bar? Find a trainee that has never pulled a sumo deadlift before. You’ll likely find that they cannot hit their conventional max. They might not even get close. But, hey, the muscle mass is identical! Why did the axioms fail? It’s because it’s lacking similarity. It’s a bit alien to pull sumo for the first time. Levers are in different places and doing different things at different times. Regardless, the idea of a similarity principle explains why pulling sumo isn’t a guarantee of lifting 150% of your DL 1RM for an easy set of 5. There is a lack of carryover.
Other Things to Consider
Sometimes we get injured. Does that change priorities? Yes. If you have a muscle belly injury, you might want to seem out greater ROM at the expense of weight. If you have a tendon issue, well then reducing the muscle mass that involves that attachment might be ideal. In order to do that, take into account the extra rules. Can you do this movement with what you have? Does it have carryover (similarity)? Does it eliminate or mitigate pain? You see why some extra rules work. The original three don’t address the total system. Neither do all eight, but at least there are additional points of analysis to ponder.
What’s the point?
Basically, the point is that simple rulesets only work under simple conditions. For those of us that have been training for years, the ruleset needs to evolve. It should encompass things that allow us to stay on a productive lifting path for a long time, if we choose to do so. If that means pulling sumo, so be it. Wrist curls for a more stable bench? Fine! It’s you and your goals.
Admittedly, my added ruleset is not complete. It is subject to change given updated constraints. That’s the main point: getting stronger is a personal evolution. You’ll hit boundaries that are not hard and fast. Some will need to be nudged gently, others transcended abruptly. You’ll need the tools to do this. And three simple rules might not always suffice. They didn’t when I was in sales, and they don’t for strength.
I added a few words and made some edits. Let me know how it looks. Thanks!
The Three Legged Stool – Why Rulesets Need Complexity
When I was working in the sales industry, I would encounter this “axiom” of the three legged stool. This mythical stool had legs of price, quality, and time. The “axiom” was that you could pick two to improve, but that the third would suffer.
What does this have to do with training? Well it brings me to a well-known model that states criteria of most muscle mass used, over the longest range of motion, with the heaviest weight lifted to determine exercise selection strictly. While I believe these rules are good rules, they are by no means complete as a trainee evolves. Over the course of my training, I’ve had to add to these three. We will get to those in a bit.
The exercise selection itself falls into three general categories of a sitting motion, a pushing motion, and a pulling motion. Respective examples would be squat, bench press, and deadlift. For this article, these categories will be considered as a complete coverage of general purpose strength training movements.
Before you start to analyze my analogy, there isn’t one. It’s just that we like to think in these simple rulesets and 3 is a common number.
But back to these model criteria, do they truly hold?
Maybe…
Here’s an example using the close-grip bench press (CGBP) and the regular bench press (BP). From my own experience, the range of motion (ROM) is about 2” greater on CGBP than BP. My strength deficit is such that I can CGBP about 90% of my BP. That’s about the same as the delta in ROM difference between the two. In other words, I trade a 10% drop in strength for a 10% increase in ROM. Along with the increase in ROM comes an increase in time to move the bar, so things are sort of evened out, at least in my mind. What about muscle mass? Well that’s about the same too, no? I mean, the same groups are involved. However, there is a change in geometry that makes for more work for the triceps and less work for the pectoralis groups, hence the drop in strength. And where does this help? Well it helps when proximal biceps tendons get angry and the CGBP allows one to train a similar movement through a similar ROM, using similar muscle activation, but with less pain and aggravation.
So what?
Well, for me, this allows me to train a lying down press variant more often over the course of the week. And it has tremendous carryover. So now, in essence, I’ve had to introduce extra criteria into my ruleset for exercise selection. They are:
-Similarity to the main lift
-Benefit to the building of overall strength
-Ability to perform with equipment constraints
-Ability to perform without pain or increased risk of injury
-Personal enjoyment
The reasoning behind the first rule is pretty clear. If one is training to display strength in a particular lift, then similarity is necessary, but not always sufficient. That leads to the second rule.
The second rule seems to be redundant of the first rule, but it isn’t. What can be perplexing (at least on the surface) is that a pulling accessory motion like a bent-over row can help build a better bench press. That’s because even though there are the three general categories of lifts, and they cover the domain of general strength well, they are by no means strictly distinct. It’s pretty clear that being a good squatter carries over to the deadlift. Is it as clear that developing a good front squat might help your overhead press? To me it wasn’t at first, but empirically (from my own training and observing others), there is carryover. When the movements are analyzed thoughtfully, there is a plausible argument.
For the third rule, this is something for those of us that lift at home or in a smaller gym. While I’d love to do real hip belt squats on a hip belt machine, that isn’t going to happen given my constraints. Nevertheless, some workarounds can be found. This is also an important point to consider when outfitting a gym. You might want to shell out a few more dollars for that adjustable bench (I wish I did).
The fourth additional rule should also be obvious, but sometimes we are just too stubborn. If a lift is grinding you down and kicking your ass, work around it. Get stronger so you can get back to that lift with confidence. Also, you might want to consider your own training advancement and how frequent some lifts should be performed. That’s a topic for another time.
Finally, the lift should be somewhat fun. In reality, none of this stuff is terribly fun, but your exercise selection should be based on the ability to see success and progress on a lift, in lieu of fun. Being mentally engaged in the process of training is probably the most import aspect to continued success.
Meatloaf – Two out of Three Ain’t Bad?
Let’s head back to the top and think about this now. We have:
-Most muscle mass
-Greatest ROM
-Heaviest weight
But it’s clear that lifts are trading one for the other. The CGBP/BP fits. We traded ROM for weight. Similarly, deficit deadlifts are harder than rack pulls. The issue is that this original trade space is too limited. It’s also potentially wrong.
An Example
It’s evident that sumo has a reduced ROM. However, does that translate to a heavier weight on the bar? Find a trainee that has never pulled a sumo deadlift before. You’ll likely find that they cannot hit their conventional max. They might not even get close. But, hey, the muscle mass is identical! Why did the axioms fail? It’s because it’s lacking similarity. It’s a bit alien to pull sumo for the first time. Levers are in different places and doing different things at different times. Regardless, the idea of a similarity principle explains why pulling sumo isn’t a guarantee of lifting 150% of your DL 1RM for an easy set of 5. There is a lack of carryover.
Other Things to Consider
Sometimes we get injured. Does that change priorities? Yes. If you have a muscle belly injury, you might want to seem out greater ROM at the expense of weight. If you have a tendon issue, well then reducing the muscle mass that involves that attachment might be ideal. In order to do that, take into account the extra rules. Can you do this movement with what you have? Does it have carryover (similarity)? Does it eliminate or mitigate pain? You see why some extra rules work. The original three don’t address the total system. Neither do all eight, but at least there are additional points of analysis to ponder.
What’s the point?
Basically, the point is that simple rulesets only work under simple conditions. For those of us that have been training for years, the ruleset needs to evolve. It should encompass things that allow us to stay on a productive lifting path for a long time, if we choose to do so. If that means pulling sumo, so be it. Wrist curls for a more stable bench? Fine! It’s you and your goals.
Admittedly, my added ruleset is not complete. It is subject to change given updated constraints. That’s the main point: getting stronger is a personal evolution. You’ll hit boundaries that are not hard and fast. Some will need to be nudged gently, others transcended abruptly. You’ll need the tools to do this. And three simple rules might not always suffice. They didn’t when I was in sales, and they don’t for strength.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 1823
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:40 am
- Age: 63
Re: Article Draft: The Three Legged Stool – Why Rulesets Need Complexity
What is the purpose of the article and who is the intended reader?
The article does an artful job of unfolding the topic. If you are targeting a motivated reader or one interested in reading the article as literature, then it's great. But if the purpose is to explain the point in the second-to-last paragraph, I had to read the article twice to figure out what it was about and had to go back and forth in the article a few times to understand it.
The article does an artful job of unfolding the topic. If you are targeting a motivated reader or one interested in reading the article as literature, then it's great. But if the purpose is to explain the point in the second-to-last paragraph, I had to read the article twice to figure out what it was about and had to go back and forth in the article a few times to understand it.
- mgil
- Shitpostmaster General
- Posts: 8477
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:46 pm
- Location: FlabLab©®
- Age: 49
Re: Article Draft: The Three Legged Stool – Why Rulesets Need Complexity
I'm not sure I'm attempting to fully explain how/why to add various exercises or whatnot. Mainly just trying to explain that the 3 rule approach is too strict for a long term model of evaluating lift selection.DoctorWho wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:04 am What is the purpose of the article and who is the intended reader?
The article does an artful job of unfolding the topic. If you are targeting a motivated reader or one interested in reading the article as literature, then it's great. But if the purpose is to explain the point in the second-to-last paragraph, I had to read the article twice to figure out what it was about and had to go back and forth in the article a few times to understand it.
It's definitely a work in progress. And yeah, it's going to sound like academic stuff.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 1823
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:40 am
- Age: 63
Re: Article Draft: The Three Legged Stool – Why Rulesets Need Complexity
I've had many thousands of pages of my writing edited and edited many thousands of pages. It sucks from both directions no matter what, so I hope take my comments in the spirit I intended (and think you have).
- mgil
- Shitpostmaster General
- Posts: 8477
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:46 pm
- Location: FlabLab©®
- Age: 49
Re: Article Draft: The Three Legged Stool – Why Rulesets Need Complexity
I appreciate the feedback and no offense was taken!
- Shane
- Great Old One
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:04 pm
- Age: 56
Re: Article Draft: The Three Legged Stool – Why Rulesets Need Complexity
This is great stuff dude! And now the but. At least it's not the butt. I believe the paragraph above is not needed. It distances your stool axiom from the argument that a more complex set of rules is needed for exercise selection. The paragraph would be vital if for each of your criteria, you had an example tailored to each of the three lift categories, and you drew attention to that fact. Which I wouldn't advocate because then it becomes more recipe than rationale.mgil wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:36 am *Update*
The exercise selection itself falls into three general categories of a sitting motion, a pushing motion, and a pulling motion. Respective examples would be squat, bench press, and deadlift. For this article, these categories will be considered as a complete coverage of general purpose strength training movements.
- perman
- Registered User
- Posts: 1183
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:48 pm
- Location: Near Oslo, Norway
- Age: 39
Re: Article Draft: The Three Legged Stool – Why Rulesets Need Complexity
I think this kind of editing can work really well. Apparently 10 people with 100 IQ will be more than capable of scoring over the Mensa requirements if they cooperate, because they eliminate each others stupid answers.
Then again the saying goes "A camel is a horse designed by a committee".
Then again the saying goes "A camel is a horse designed by a committee".