Strong Rick
Level 9 Valued Member
hello all,
I was reading something from Geoff neuport the other day and in it there was a mention that the "same workout" (I.e. Swings and getups) done over and over for a long time would eventually stop being effective....
This is copied and pasted from that article
"For example: 100 swings a day - as minimalistic and appealing as it seems to some, will, over the long haul, fail to produce results. (I've advocated using this very simple program repeatedly to many people over the last 5-7 years for getting them up and running. It's highly effective for the short term - which is exactly what many people need to build generate momentum and build consistency.)"
Could you please explain this rational to me.
He then goes on and expands....
"This law simply states that the response of an organism to a specific stimulus decreases over time until it's no longer a stimulus - it's part of homeostasis - or equilibrium.
It's why runners who run the same distance year after year after year actually get fatter.
"So you have to overcome this by either waving the load (which I've written about extensively in the past) - near random increases and decreases in your sets, reps, and weight, or by using "specialized variety" - which is "same but different" exercises."
How is simple and sinister different from this type of thinking?
Should we be waving the load for simple and sinister?
Are we "spinning wheels" or "inching along" doing the sample training day in and day out?
You guys know way more about this stuff than I do so please educate me.
I'm sure I am just misunderstanding something because why would Pavel put something like that out.... what is also confusing is that Geoff was a high ranking person for many years under Pavel and pays him high compliments still to this day, why would recommend doing simple and sinister for only a couple weeks and then go on to something else?
There are people working on achieving simple for months doing the same training day in and day out when they could possibly reach that goal sooner if they wave the load or change it up and go back to simple for another session.
Or is it because we raise the load when we "pass" the time standard that doesn't make it the same training day in and day out as it is referred to in the article
Please explain to me what I am missing
Thanks in advance!
I was reading something from Geoff neuport the other day and in it there was a mention that the "same workout" (I.e. Swings and getups) done over and over for a long time would eventually stop being effective....
This is copied and pasted from that article
"For example: 100 swings a day - as minimalistic and appealing as it seems to some, will, over the long haul, fail to produce results. (I've advocated using this very simple program repeatedly to many people over the last 5-7 years for getting them up and running. It's highly effective for the short term - which is exactly what many people need to build generate momentum and build consistency.)"
Could you please explain this rational to me.
He then goes on and expands....
"This law simply states that the response of an organism to a specific stimulus decreases over time until it's no longer a stimulus - it's part of homeostasis - or equilibrium.
It's why runners who run the same distance year after year after year actually get fatter.
"So you have to overcome this by either waving the load (which I've written about extensively in the past) - near random increases and decreases in your sets, reps, and weight, or by using "specialized variety" - which is "same but different" exercises."
How is simple and sinister different from this type of thinking?
Should we be waving the load for simple and sinister?
Are we "spinning wheels" or "inching along" doing the sample training day in and day out?
You guys know way more about this stuff than I do so please educate me.
I'm sure I am just misunderstanding something because why would Pavel put something like that out.... what is also confusing is that Geoff was a high ranking person for many years under Pavel and pays him high compliments still to this day, why would recommend doing simple and sinister for only a couple weeks and then go on to something else?
There are people working on achieving simple for months doing the same training day in and day out when they could possibly reach that goal sooner if they wave the load or change it up and go back to simple for another session.
Or is it because we raise the load when we "pass" the time standard that doesn't make it the same training day in and day out as it is referred to in the article
Please explain to me what I am missing
Thanks in advance!