Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Pavel is explaining the "science behind the hood" of S&S. He's saying it's doing it by a very specific mechanism (mitochondria in fast fibers). So as soon as one poster asks "wait, does that actually happen?" you can't just say "emh just forget about studies... common sense and practice is all that matters".Common sense applied to biology is far more enlightening than arguing about scientific papers. Trust me when I say that every author has some degree of "faith" written into the paper.
I have zero problems with being practical. I agree that if you go from 1 snatch to 100 snatches in a day, you're generally more conditioned by a variety of different ways. It's just bothersome because every conditioning program ever does that. By this logic, ROP builds mitochondria. Metcons build mitochondria. I mean, if that's the case, I'm fine with that. I just don't see the need to market S&S as this special A+A revolutionary protocol. It's just basic conditioning.
What bothers me is that, perhaps in an attempt to market it, there's misinformation. It creates OP's asking how to put mitochondria in their fast twitch instead of their slow twitch. I recently told a sports coach about this A+A protocol people are using to put mitochondria in their fast twitch fibers, and he just about spit his coffee on my face out of laughter. "Where did you hear stuff like that, a Crossfit forum?".
I guess it's easy to just call it quits and says "it works so why care how?". But some of us actually care how, and want to learn. Rant over I guess.
I'm well aware of his stuff online. I just can't read it. That's what I meant.Also, you can use the same argument "in the age of internet, smartphones etc. where everyone can find almost any info he/she wants within a matter of seconds" for blaming
anyone who does NOT know Selouyanov because some of his articles are online and no one prevents you from reading them.
Pavel makes Russian references all the time (like Sheiko's routines), but I quite simply can't read them (except the 28-32 that were translated). Like Mark Rippetoe mentions, (I'm paraphrasing), "Russian research is loosely and sloppily annotated and rarely lends itself to correct independent verification of results", which is an absolute key thing to the scientific method. Part of that is that it's in Russian and translations are either nonexistent, or will carry the bias/conclusions that the translator himself wants to make his point.