What type of scenario would make the term 'general' worthless?
There is a continuum of usefulness for "GPP" in the context of any goal. Is training for a 1rm squat GPP for a gamer?
Any term becomes worthless where the language fails to convey the intended meaning to the recipient. It can be redeemed by spending as much time as necessary to establish an agreed upon definition, but even then that is conversation dependent and would have to be reestablished before having another conversation about the topic, unless it is with the same individuals who are reentering the conversation remembering the previous framework.
We're getting into the weeds a little here, BUT as far as "GPP" goes, I get a little irritated when people say that everything is GPP. I mean, yeah, I guess kinda but not really. It's still preparedness for something, and what that something is matters... a lot.
I have not seen good explanations of GPP so I can't really comment. Anything from playing soccer and volleyball to sled pushes/pulls to kettlebell circuits... Everything that is "physical activity" seems to end up included in "GPP" as long as it is not the actual sport. So while I don't feel your irritation, I understand why you are.
I agree. General means it will improve a broad spectrum of things and it only follows that how much it will help different tasks is going to vary - that's why it's general. If it was "specific" then we'd expect to be able to talk about what specifically it would or wouldn't help.
I would argue "Yes" to your question because we know that getting stronger at a compound movement will have a lot of carryover, perhaps even as simply as allowing someone not to become as fatigued during a long "gaming" effort, or perhaps as simply as improving their confidence in themselves across the board based on their successful pursuit of a training goal, or perhaps improved body composition/appearance. The question I'm answering is, "Would the gaming performance of an _untrained_ gamer improve if he/she trained for an improved squat 1RM?" If the training program is intelligent then it would certainly help some people (I'd argue _most_ people) and do no harm to others.
Well yes, but my point is that there's GPP that will help a given task and then there's GPP that, while it may indeed (for example) help your health, may or may not be beneficial for what you are training for. Again, a continuum of usefulness, the distinction between GPP and SPP is made in the context of a goal.
We could argue this for the sake of arguing, I guess, but if I was confronted with a gamer that wanted to improve his gaming (and presumably general health), then improving his squat 1rm would be really really low on the list of priorities UNLESS they were already so weak that getting out of a chair was a struggle.
Well, if we're using GPP interchangeably with "general strength/fitness/health", then yes. Again, I distinguish GPP as something at the top of an inverted pyramid with SPP at the point with a goal underlying the pyramid itself.
Yes, I think anyone here would be in complete agreement that KB work is good GPP for PL. Absolutely.
I think the choice of gamer was an interesting one. If we work with the stereotype of a human connected to a computer in a Matrix-esque way it is somewhat analogous to meditation.
