At this point I don't think I have much more to contribute to a conversation that has gone so far afield from its origin (for which I apologize, though I feel I've mostly been simply responding),
No apology necessary. This has been a conversation that I know a number of people have followed with interest.
nor am I advocating an all or nothing in favor of any specific protocol.
But here you are not recommending what StrongFirst recommends - that's fine, but I feel it's important to make this distinction clear to anyone reading this thread. We have described what we do at StrongFirst as "an inch wide and a mile deep." We are very interested in specific protocols that help people. We believe that becoming the master of a few, well-chosen things is better than training many movements and approaches, and we choose those things with great carryover to not just other exercises but to the professional and recreational lives of the members of our community. We are absolutely advocating for specific protocols.
So I'll simply finish with the observation that the estimation of cost from gylcolytic training is oversold in any but the most extreme of circumstances.
And again here, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but that opinion goes against much of what has been written in our blogs and taught at our events. StrongFirst feels that there are better alternatives _because_ the cost of glycolytic training _is_ high. Our solution isn't to brand glycolysis as some sort of Demon and avoid it like it's the plague, but rather to minimize it in training in order to minimize the costs associated with it.
Additionally, the glycolytic pathway covers a lot of breadth, even the phrase "glycolytic training" is impossibly broad. Are we talking about habitual metcons, running a set to 45+ seconds TUT, using a drop set after a 3 rep exertion, 60-90 second rest periods?
Asked and answered many times on this forum and in our blogs. We're aren't talking about anything other than trying to minimize the role of glycolysis in training because we have found this to be beneficial, and we have - in our blogs, on our forum, and at our special events like Strong Endurance - given guidance as to what we recommend as training. There are many things we don't specifically recommend - no one says they don't work, only that we are recommending a few, well-chosen protocols. We don't say you're wrong ...
And in my estimation the idea that "Only the mediocre are at their best all the time." is quite the generalization. Esp re GPP which by its definition means you're good to go whenever the task falls on you.
From
General physical preparedness - Wikipedia
General Physical Preparation, also known as GPP, lays the groundwork for later Specific Physical Preparation, or SPP. ... GPP is the initial stage of training. ... This preparation prepares the athlete for the more intense training ...
Your definition is not the standard one.
"Gimme a month" to develop this or that quality = date-driven performance prep. Which is still fine as a fitness strategy if you have the luxury of deciding when and where to be at your best.
It's not that. GPP is foundational work on which higher, more specific performance is built. As a general way to think of it, consider an athlete who has one or two competitive seasons during the year. Some of his or her time will be spent on GPP and, as a competition approaches, the training will become more specific to the event to come.
In my philosophy one's "best" is how well one does with unprogrammed movements and tasks - everything else is just a rough measure of potential progress or strength for show or sport.
There is a quite a large, franchised fitness chain that advocates training in this way - different things every day with no ability to specifically prepare. May you and they live long and prosper together.
I prefer the "inch wide and a mile deep" approach - philosophy, if you will.
Again, nothing wrong with that. There's a reason there are as many fitness strategies out there as there are goals.
Thank you and, yes, there are many fitness strategies out there. I just need to make the point, for the record, that what you're advocating is not what we do around here. We do find that many in our community can, indeed, perform very well at tasks they haven't specifically prepared for, but we don't advocate training to achieve that "state" by the means you are recommending, and we don't believe that glycolytic-focused, glycolytic-intensvie training is desirable or needed by most people on a regular basis and that minimizing such training is, indeed, a very good thing.
-S-
