Off-Topic Anyone seen this? Criticism of Pavel on Rogan by Bart Kay

[2accidental]

All I hear BJJ guys talking about is injuries. One bloke was telling me how it's never the same people in class each week, cos people are constantly healing or coming back from something.

When it comes to combat training, its very gard to find people who actually train without trying to kill each other. There are places where, on the one hand, there's plenty of dust-waving taking place and on the other, missing teeth, cabbaged ears, torn ligaments and broken bones. I guess a shadow of LISS and HIIT types.

My father always says, stay at 70% in all your training. Dip to 50% when you need to, rev to 95% when you have to.

The way the Thais are sparring these days are right for longevity and sharpness, and yet a lot of fun:

 

[2accidental]

I have lots of respect for BJJ skills, training and BJJ athletes. For many reasons however I have stuck with judo and kendo over the years. Indeed, culture has something to do with this, although my main reasons are more related to the fact that being able to keep your feet in a fight is very important. Giving up tactical mobility (keeping on your feet keeps your tactical mobility there) on purpose or because you don't know how to handle fighting standing up, just does not make sense to me. I've been at this stuff too long to be convinced otherwise (since 1988)... Having said all that, injuries like tearing your shoulder out or whatever in BJJ though is different from being slammed down hard on the mats onto your face or head and breaking your neck or whatever like can happen with every throw in judo. Judo is safe (and wrestling - judo and wrestling are two sides of the same coin) providing you do it right and gently, you attack safely knowing how to do it safely, and you know how to fall and keep drilling how to fall. When two guys go at it with an attitude in judo (and this _does_ happen, just like in BJJ) people do get hurt, and the impact of being thrown down hard can make this kind of hurt especially bad. But, indeed, I've been at judo since 1988 and was competitive for about 6 years (also cross-competed a bit in BJJ) and have been injured several times, but never terribly badly. I guess my point here is that while maybe judo and wrestling cause less injuries overall than BJJ(?) but that the potential for more serious injury is a lot more present in them than in BJJ... At least this has been my assumption.

I do think being able to fight with your hands in the spur of the moment is important. One big selling point of S&S initially was the emphasis Pavel puts on being fight-ready. And I'll add, and my kendo sensei thinks the same way, kendo has self-defence applications. Too easy to get shot or stabbed though in real life. Honestly, these things are to me 99% sports and cultural activities only.

I'll agree with everything you say here

 

[Kára Thrace]

Did he forget to mention the WTH effect? That can’t be quantified nor examined in a Petri dish but as many of “us” (LOL, I’m a newb) have found increases in performance and strength gains and even fat loss that he would be unable to explain. I’ve not watched the video as it’s way too long for my attention span so it got no traction here. Look forward to hearing if he did mention it!

 

[Kozushi]

When it comes to combat training, its very gard to find people who actually train without trying to kill each other. There are places where, on the one hand, there's plenty of dust-waving taking place and on the other, missing teeth, cabbaged ears, torn ligaments and broken bones. I guess a shadow of LISS and HIIT types.

My father always says, stay at 70% in all your training. Dip to 50% when you need to, rev to 95% when you have to.

The way the Thais are sparring these days are right for longevity and sharpness, and yet a lot of fun:

One of the martial arts I have the most respect for is boxing, but I ain't going to do it. My brain needs to not get shaken so much. At least with kendo I can train similar skills but without as much danger of concussions and broken teeth, noses (actually, I only have on nose) or jaws (yes, this one too, I only have one jaw).

Those guys are having a lot of fun indeed! I like how they do some "judo" at the end of each round to throw a guy onto the mats.

 

[2accidental]

You seem to have the true spirit of a martial artist, as ironically, many on the sofa think boxing is not a legit martial art, just a limited sport...except those who actually 'know'.

Likewise, for those that snicker at S&S or AGT- they obviously haven't actually done the programs

 

[salsa]

I think that in general fitness cannot be evidence based in its entirety, just like physiotherapy or anything else. Some things are not measurable, or we do not have enough data to have concrete answers so sometimes we need extrapolation. Evidence based programs do not produce world champions. Russian sport science was in majorly empirical. They followed hundreds if not thousands of athletes through several Olympic cycles. Like system of Boris Sheiko, it works. In exercises often times science proves something retroactively. e.g. foot position and calf activation that bodybuilders knew experientially, but few years ago it was officially confirmed.

In several podcasts Stuart McGill stated that he knows Pavel for a long time, and that he (Pavel) has strongest antirotational and sagittal strength pound for pound that he ever measured. And that is measured in laboratory and McGill worked with a lot of high performance athletes.. One cannot fake that. So, if world renowned scientist claims something like that, it says something. Programming works. Pavel walks the walk.

Of course then there is a question if he personally trains like he teaches but whatever he does do, he is living proof that it works and lab measurements confirm it.

I do not care if Pavel lacks knowledge in biology, I care about results. (how many trainers remember Krebs cycle in detail)

 

[2accidental]

I think that in general fitness cannot be evidence based in its entirety, just like physiotherapy or anything else. Some things are not measurable, or we do not have enough data to have concrete answers so sometimes we need extrapolation. Evidence based programs do not produce world champions. Russian sport science was in majorly empirical. They followed hundreds if not thousands of athletes through several Olympic cycles. Like system of Boris Sheiko, it works. In exercises often times science proves something retroactively. e.g. foot position and calf activation that bodybuilders knew experientially, but few years ago it was officially confirmed.

In several podcasts Stuart McGill stated that he knows Pavel for a long time, and that he (Pavel) has strongest antirotational and sagittal strength pound for pound that he ever measured. And that is measured in laboratory and McGill worked with a lot of high performance athletes.. One cannot fake that. So, if world renowned scientist claims something like that, it says something. Programming works. Pavel walks the walk.

Of course then there is a question if he personally trains like he teaches but whatever he does do, he is living proof that it works and lab measurements confirm it.

I do not care if Pavel lacks knowledge in biology, I care about results. (how many trainers remember Krebs cycle in detail)

Great reply

 

[LukeV]

I read a study years ago, can't find it on Google, where they attached movement monitors to children. The hypothesis was children's natural activity would be a window to the optimal exercise for humans. Anyway, apparently children sit, sprint, climb, roll, wrestle, push, pull and lie down but never jog. Never jog ever. So-called steady state cardio exercise simply does not exist in the natural play patterns of little humans growing and developing into big humans. I think that has to mean something

 

[Pasibrzuch]

I think this discussion refers to the question of: What did we evolve to be fit to do? What type of fitness was required for survival? Caveman examples abound, from running from tigers or chasing prey (intervals) to walking for days to forage food or migrate across continents (steady state), but whatever fitness is required, the fittest survive to perpetuate the species. So this argument can be used in favor of one type of exercise or the other.

For fitness (able to do what is required), as @bluejeff pointed out, does it really matter? "did we evolve to fly in airplanes? Did we evolve to send emails and stare at smartphones and use Twitter?"

2 competing camps of people think the healthiest form of exercise should look like "what we evolved to do"

SS argument- believe humans evolved as persistence hunters - jog after your prey, wait until it tires out, capture and eat it.
HIIT argument - sprint/throw a spear something else in a burst of activity and then lounge.

There are proponents of each, detractors of each, and most likely the real answer falls in the middle somewhere.

Thank you for the answers!
I must say that "appeal to caveman" has always seemed sort of a fallacy to me. I see no reason why my lifestyle should resemble the one of my remote ancestors. Don't want to go pseudo-philosophical here, but being a human is, for me, about transgressing your current position, not coming back to the supposed "paradise lost". 24h races, alpinism, super long a+a sessions or entering the ring are sport manifestations of the need to go beyond your limits. Sometimes with a price on your health but with some intangible mental benefit. However, I understand this view might not resonate with some.

I managed to somehow watch the video. What's more irritating than the style of the speaker is a wasted potential for an interesting debate.

Some points are interesting however. I don't understand fully, so maybe some of you could clarify.
1) if our way of training is wrong (a+a, antiglycolitic, etc.), why do we have the results. I vaguely remember him saying it's just "accumulated fatigue"
2) "5 max efforts 3 times a week is enough". Enough for what? Certainly not for mastering a martial art where you need to do each movement thousands of times for it to become your second nature. Does he mean strictly conditioning and/or general health?

Still, I deeply believe that the more you know, the humbler you are. No trust in this guy.

 

[North Coast Miller]

I think this discussion refers to the question of: What did we evolve to be fit to do? What type of fitness was required for survival? Caveman examples abound, from running from tigers or chasing prey (intervals) to walking for days to forage food or migrate across continents (steady state), but whatever fitness is required, the fittest survive to perpetuate the species. So this argument can be used in favor of one type of exercise or the other.

Personally I believe humans evolved to be adaptable and above all, to walk long distances and to make and use tools. Cavemen who could more effectively use an atlatl would have a much better chance of survival than ones who could run a little faster, ones who could fashion better clothing could range much further afield than ones who were naturally somewhat more tolerant of colder weather.

I am unconvinced of the utility of the "persistence hunter" strategy in practice and VERY dubious that it was a major driver of evolutionary biology for humans. There's been a lot of natural selection going on since our theoretical origins on the savanna, and early humans could hardly have run down prey with confidence across the ranges of many large carnivores and packs of smaller ones. What an average activity level and focus should look like will be as different from one climate to the next as the local diet. Also, a day of foraging is going to look a lot different from fighting off a raiding party from another community.

Ultimately that argument is not even relevant, when it comes to training we're talking about adaptive response and not a hypothetical ancestral activity mode. I have no intention of sitting around for half a day twisting fibers into cordage and walking 10 miles digging up tubers for my fitness regimen.

How does the body respond to repetitive self imposed stimulus? Is it even possible for a single approach to trump all others? Since when is observable cause and effect not a valid basis for planning a course of action?

 

[rwleonard]

Those guys are having a lot of fun indeed! I like how they do some "judo" at the end of each round to throw a guy onto the mats.

One of my favorite quotes from a MA instructor, "If you don't enjoy sparring, you're sparring with the wrong people."

 

[Anna C]

Personally I believe humans evolved to be adaptable and above all, to walk long distances and to make and use tools. Cavemen who could more effectively use an atlatl would have a much better chance of survival than ones who could run a little faster, ones who could fashion better clothing could range much further afield than ones who were naturally somewhat more tolerant of colder weather.

I am unconvinced of the utility of the "persistence hunter" strategy in practice and VERY dubious that it was a major driver of evolutionary biology for humans. There's been a lot of natural selection going on since our theoretical origins on the savanna, and early humans could hardly have run down prey with confidence across the ranges of many large carnivores and packs of smaller ones. What an average activity level and focus should look like will be as different from one climate to the next as the local diet. Also, a day of foraging is going to look a lot different from fighting off a raiding party from another community.

Ultimately that argument is not even relevant, when it comes to training we're talking about adaptive response and not a hypothetical ancestral activity mode. I have no intention of sitting around for half a day twisting fibers into cordage and walking 10 miles digging up tubers for my fitness regimen.

How does the body respond to repetitive self imposed stimulus? Is it even possible for a single approach to trump all others? Since when is observable cause and effect not a valid basis for planning a course of action?

I would agree with this, and I think the way we've adapted or evolved, especially as far as our energy systems, has more to do with nutrition than fitness. Our wonderfully flexible energy systems sustain us through periods of less than adequate food supplies. It's a bit of a different discussion than how one or the other method of energy production in the body is better for supplying ATP for exercise. Personally if I have the energy I think I should have, I don't worry too much about how it's being produced. I'm just grateful that my energy systems work well, and aren't impaired by some disorder or state of non-health.

On the other hand though, and in support of the evolutionary relevance of knowing what to do for a healthy existence, I often return to this idea when things feel "off." What is natural for my body and brain? What am I built for? The answers include: Being outside. Having exposure to different temperatures. Sleeping at night when it's dark. Having a lot of low-level physical activity and occasional intense activity. Working with my hands. Not staring at a screen all day. Eating natural food. Not taking pills and supplements and drugs/alcohol. Interacting socially and cooperatively with others. Physical contact with others. Singing and dancing sometimes. Creating things. Watching the sky - the sunrise, sunset, moon, stars, and clouds. Observing animals. Feeling breezes in the air and moving waters. Etc.....

 

[Starlord]

Dated, outdated, undated, pre-dated....doesn't make a difference. One thing that no one can refute is that Pavel has based his programming principles on empirical evidence that occurred over the course of 4 Olympic cycles. He even admits that he doesn't know biologically "exactly" why training with volume and intensity being uncoupled works, but it clearly does. That evidence is good enough for me.

This falls short. Certain studies he uses will have tracked olympic athletes over a minimum of 4 olympic cycles (providing they aren't removed by any unforeseen circumstances aka career ending injury).

These studies as a whole have been spanning half a century in some cases.

I'm probably just being finicky now but I just REALLY want to highlight the depth of some of Pavels source material.

 

[Antti]

I read a study years ago, can't find it on Google, where they attached movement monitors to children. The hypothesis was children's natural activity would be a window to the optimal exercise for humans. Anyway, apparently children sit, sprint, climb, roll, wrestle, push, pull and lie down but never jog. Never jog ever. So-called steady state cardio exercise simply does not exist in the natural play patterns of little humans growing and developing into big humans. I think that has to mean something

Children can't tolerate lactic acid, or clear it up, however you want to see it.

I don't think children particularly enjoy aerobic exercise either.

 

[offwidth]

I read a study years ago, can't find it on Google, where they attached movement monitors to children. The hypothesis was children's natural activity would be a window to the optimal exercise for humans. Anyway, apparently children sit, sprint, climb, roll, wrestle, push, pull and lie down but never jog. Never jog ever. So-called steady state cardio exercise simply does not exist in the natural play patterns of little humans growing and developing into big humans. I think that has to mean something

I think this is a real stretch....
If anything I would be inclined to agree with @Antti ... kids don’t normally have enjoyment of LED. (Nor do many adults, or so it would seem). They do what they enjoy.

 

[max1993]

@Starlord just out of interest, do you happen to know if any of those studies are available somewhere?

 

[Starlord]

@Starlord just out of interest, do you happen to know if any of those studies are available somewhere?

My assumption is yes. As a few of my acquaintances who studied out of Loughborough University have read and referred to them many times.

However I would not know how to go about finding any study without Google.

 

[Kozushi]

Organisms can do things they are not designed for. Organisms are not perfectly designed for their environments. Aspects of organisms are matters of how the organism functions, and this is not necessarily linked directly to survival needs.

For example, humans can pack a ridiculous amount of fat on their frame, but this is not good for us. This is just a function of how our fat-storing ability works. We can also become ridiculously strong because of how our muscle-growing capabilities work, but this strength is beyond any evolutionary sense... and it's pretty darn hard to achieve too!

Reading and writing have zero evolutionary natural aspects to them. Literacy makes a mockery of our senses. It turns sights (letters) into sounds. This is a joke. It's 100% unnatural, yet in the grander scheme of things it works very well and facilitates communication. We have hijacked one sense to be used for another. Some blind people can "see" through a sense they develop almost like the sonar of bats.

While we are bound by the mechanics of our bodies, the mechanics of our bodies have potential beyond what they were originally designed for.

I doubt our hands were designed as flippers, but we use them as such in the water.

While not everything is wise, everything we do is natural since we are inextricably part of nature.

 

[2accidental]

I read a study years ago, can't find it on Google, where they attached movement monitors to children. The hypothesis was children's natural activity would be a window to the optimal exercise for humans. Anyway, apparently children sit, sprint, climb, roll, wrestle, push, pull and lie down but never jog. Never jog ever. So-called steady state cardio exercise simply does not exist in the natural play patterns of little humans growing and developing into big humans. I think that has to mean something

You have definitely made some interesting points here, which I see with my own children and students I observe at school during playtime- it's never a constant movement, it's run, stroll, sprint, canter...and all the various paces a human can do, including sitting under a tree when tired to recoup.

 

[Antti]

@Starlord just out of interest, do you happen to know if any of those studies are available somewhere?

Have a look at the translations published by Sportivny press.

Also textbooks like Science and Practice of Strength Training and Supertraining would likely be useful.