Other/Mixed Off-Road Prius Tires

[Deleted member 5559]

Something I noticed today - that I've noticed before but not as clearly - that occurs frequently (that I'm guilty of just like everyone) is a desire to use a tool or protocol intended for one purpose for a different purpose. Something like "how can I run to build muscle" or "how many reps of S&S will improve my powerlifting total".

Why do we do this? Is it because our goals are not defined well enough to know exactly what tool and protocol is needed or are we in fantasy land about the actual needs and requirements? Is it because we are exploring the possibilities of correlation?

I'm constantly seeking solutions that accomplish everything and always find that doing everything is almost synonymous with doing nothing. The SUV is a good example: it doesn't haul people as well as a minivan and it doesn't haul gravel as well as a pickup. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

The art of the compromise has become the first attempt at most problems until a recognition of the severity of that problem and then magically it becomes clear; to use the right tool for the job, know the job - really honestly know the job.

 

[North Coast Miller]

The art of the compromise has become the first attempt at most problems until a recognition of the severity of that problem and then magically it becomes clear; to use the right tool for the job, know the job - really honestly know the job.

Understand the job.
"Build" a machine that will do that job.
Expand laterally the number of other jobs the machine can do well (or well-enough).

A few other observations:
Sometimes when we think we're failing because of the attempt to improve at everything, we are actually improving at everything but at a slow rate. If I have four retirement plans and divide my $ among them it doesn't look like any of them are performing particularly well till I total it up.

Aside from sport or well defined trade, it is difficult to define exactly the need, therefore we can only know what isn't working by comparing it to what works. We can only improve by being unsatisfied with the current outcome and trying something else, but only after giving whatever we currently do an honest effort.

We also are barraged from all sides about how best to be more functional - use this or that means and protocol and program, when the definition of "functional" is an individual one.

Best of luck and keep plugging away, and instead of off-road tires on Prius, get a Suzuki Samurai instead

 

[Adam R Mundorf]

I think allot of this has to do with exaggerated marketing and deceptive advertising.

Take Simple and Sinister Adcopy for example
Simple & Sinister will prepare you for almost anything life could throw at you, from carrying a piano upstairs to holding your own in a street fight.

Simple & Sinister will forge a fighter's physique—because the form must follow the function.

Simple & Sinister will give you the strength, the stamina, and the suppleness to play any sport recreationally—and play it well.

It really seems like simple and sinister will give you it all doesn't it? You shouldn't need anything else according to the books description. To a beginner or experienced gullible (myself) this can lead to the spinning of wheels. This can lead to people applying one program to any goal. Especially when deviating from a program is met with a feeling of failure and some criticism.

Maybe I'm off base with this comment but I'm really not sure .

 

[Snowman]

Maybe I'm off base with this comment but I'm really not sure

I think this is accurate. Marketing certainly plays a role in our decisions. If the car salesman does a good job of selling us the Prius "Off Road Package" so we don't go next door and buy a no-frills Silverado for 1/4 the price, that's worth noting.

To be clear, I don't think there's very much malicious marketing. I think people usually do believe in their products. If you ask Mark Rippetoe, every marathon runner should squat, bench, deadlift and press (to the extent that it helps their marathon running). Whether that's correct or not is up for debate, but my point is that Rippetoe isn't trying to trick people into buying his product, he actually believes that he's correct.

It's also worth noting that many programs make assumptions about our goals. If those assumptions are inaccurate, then it's up to us to vet that out.

Simple & Sinister will forge a fighter's physique—because the form must follow the function.

So if I want to be a competitive bodybuilder, this tells me that I'm barking up the wrong tree. Fair enough.

I do agree though, the commercial part of the fitness industry does a good job of convincing us that there's always some "do everything" program right around the corner.

to use the right tool for the job, know the job - really honestly know the job

I think this is where the issues start for most of us.

 

[Steve Freides]

@Adam R Mundorf, perhaps you should read our forum a bit more. There are an awful lot of people for whom S&S has delivered as promised.

-S-

 

[Adam R Mundorf]

@Adam R Mundorf, perhaps you should read our forum a bit more. There are an awful lot of people for whom S&S has delivered as promised.

-S-

True Steve. I was being a little foolish in my original post.

 

[Oscar]

Very interesting topic.

It really seems like simple and sinister will give you it all doesn't it? You shouldn't need anything else according to the books description.

If you read the advertising word by word, I don't think it's exagerated. I mean, if you have a 75 kg person at Sinister, he/she can probably accomplish everything said in the advertising. What it doesn't say is that reaching Sinister might take 4 or more years, and we are not used to such long time frames. But truth be spoken, all sportsman that do well in their field or are in general good shape have been training consistently for more than 4 years.

I, currently swinging the 28, am better at everything than before. I wasn't very good before, but I'm certainly better now. @Bro Mo you are far ahead than me training wise, so you won't be so lucky progressing with a GPP program .

 

[fractal]

I admit to being fascinated with carryover and I believe it’s a large component of the “inch wide and mile deep” approach. Of course this can also involve cycling programs when milestones are reached. I think if we plan our training over the course of a year or more, we are more likely to see that not everything needs to be addressed in the next 6-12 week cycle.

There’s a balance between thinking the grass is greener and being too stubborn to change tact. Being too easily distracted leads to program hopping and chasing your tail. Being too stubborn leads to seeking confirmation that your approach is the most well rounded and complete.

@CMarker wrote about ‘0pportunity cost’ in an article on breaking muscle.
When Too Much Choice Is Bad for Your Training
No matter what you choose, you will miss out on the benefit of what you’re not doing and that can drive you crazy. If I have to invest in just a couple things, I want lots of return from them.

I’ve really enjoyed the simplicity of A+A snatching and have been able to satisfy my tinkering mind with a single loosely planned strength session each week and some ever evolving GTG. So far the return on investment has been huge... I’m working out which lifts are maintained and improved (for me) by just snatching and where the additional time and energy is best spent.

This is a really fascinating topic, hope nobody minds my rambling.

 

[Al Ciampa]

Two great points either stated or implied so far turn on Brian’s original idea of “purpose”, and the fact that more stable biological change requires years to achieve.

Purpose behind training is convoluted because the very large proportion of individuals need only train for health and not function. The truth is that most of our forum readers need only walk for 60min on most days and frequently lift something challenging in no formal matter.

“Wants” are something completely different. Wants tend to require more formalized training programs. Wants require discipline, consistency, and tenacity. Wants take years to achieve. Wants are vulnerable to shiny objects on the periphery.

For the very small proportion of individuals for whom strength & endurance is foundational to their way of life, purpose is baked into the cake. Though vigilance is sometimes required, the training model is selected and adjusted through the life experience itself.

These folks don’t have the luxury of chasing ever-changing and arbitrary goals, nor slinging scientific papers back and forth about which muscle fiber is best stretched to achieve a pelvic floor pressure that still allows the proper hypertrophy of the left ventricle while performing.... etc.

My much younger self had the arbitrary goal of a big bench press. I traded the health and function of my shoulders for this. It wasn’t necessary but it was a fun and educational experience.

My current self doesn’t need to do anything more than what is required for health. I choose, however, to train in a way that supports my recreation efforts on mountain trips. Once again, making the life experience itself direct the training model.

 

[offwidth]

Two great points either stated or implied so far turn on Brian’s original idea of “purpose”, and the fact that more stable biological change requires years to achieve.

Purpose behind training is convoluted because the very large proportion of individuals need only train for health and not function. The truth is that most of our forum readers need only walk for 60min on most days and frequently lift something challenging in no formal matter.

“Wants” are something completely different. Wants tend to require more formalized training programs. Wants require discipline, consistency, and tenacity. Wants take years to achieve. Wants are vulnerable to shiny objects on the periphery.

For the very small proportion of individuals for whom strength & endurance is foundational to their way of life, purpose is baked into the cake. Though vigilance is sometimes required, the training model is selected and adjusted through the life experience itself.

These folks don’t have the luxury of chasing ever-changing and arbitrary goals, nor slinging scientific papers back and forth about which muscle fiber is best stretched to achieve a pelvic floor pressure that still allows the proper hypertrophy of the left ventricle while performing.... etc.

My much younger self had the arbitrary goal of a big bench press. I traded the health and function of my shoulders for this. It wasn’t necessary but it was a fun and educational experience.

My current self doesn’t need to do anything more than what is required for health. I choose, however, to train in a way that supports my recreation efforts on mountain trips. Once again, making the life experience itself direct the training model.

Very well said...

 

[North Coast Miller]

I admit to being fascinated with carryover ...There’s a balance between thinking the grass is greener and being too stubborn to change tact. Being too easily distracted leads to program hopping and chasing your tail. Being too stubborn leads to seeking confirmation that your approach is the most well rounded and complete.

This is the essence of it IMHO.

An honest assessment of whether or no what you are doing is fitting the need, desire, above all the intention behind what is driving you in the first place.

Most folks will become attached to modalities and conflate training outcomes wth real-life outcomes, which I believe is the primary driver of this:

... a desire to use a tool or protocol intended for one purpose for a different purpose. Something like "how can I run to build muscle" or "how many reps of S&S will improve my powerlifting total".

It IS possible to improve carryover, but then you have to identify what is the primary intent of your training followed by what activity(ies) you expect to carry over to or where it has failed. And then pay attention to your adaptive response - piece of cake!

In my case I realized a lot of simple applications were no easier even as my RM increased and even as sub-max RM increased in my lifts. Compressor's still a bear to carry around, 1800lb rolls of paper are no easier to maneuver, picking up and handling odd shaped machine components hasn't gotten easier, getting out of bed in the morning I'm no less stiff etc.

When I was only paying attention to my training I'd say I was improving in all sorts of metrics, just not in the ones that matter

 

[Deleted member 5559]

No matter what you choose, you will miss out on the benefit of what you’re not doing and that can drive you crazy. If I have to invest in just a couple things, I want lots of return from them.

Specifically, 15:23 minutes in.

 

[Bret S.]

Sometimes being stubborn and being ok with 'boring' will take you a long way, in training I've come to realize the utter excitement of boring, I only wish my girl were as ok with boring as I am..

 

[Al Ciampa]

In my case I realized a lot of simple applications were no easier even as my RM increased and even as sub-max RM increased in my lifts. Compressor's still a bear to carry around, 1800lb rolls of paper are no easier to maneuver, picking up and handling odd shaped machine components hasn't gotten easier, getting out of bed in the morning I'm no less stiff etc.

This is a rather perfect example of my point.

What did you eventually discover/change about your training that made these tasks far easier?

 

[fractal]

Specifically, 15:23 minutes in.

Great link, thank you. Reminds me of when we decided to move into our property on a steep ridge. I sold my barbell as it just wasn’t going to work with the geography and structure. As a result I committed to kettlebells and have had one of the best years of training in a long time.

 

[North Coast Miller]

This is a rather perfect example of my point.

What did you eventually discover/change about your training that made these tasks far easier?

I credit the lion's share if not all of it to change of exercise selection - primarily upper body and core work - leg specific movements didn't change at all. I didn't really alter my park benchish structure, frequency, volume, diet, none of that.

It began with annoyance based on what I noted above, followed by just trying to be mindful of how I was applying myself - movement patterns, leverage issues. Are there any commonalities? Adopting loading patterns closer to the application.

characteristics of day-to day I noticed that were not addressed by my existing exercise selection:
-no lockout
-elbows float around 90° +- 20° without full flexion or extension, primary role is stabilization to transfer movement from shoulders/trunk.
-load manipulated away from the body center of gravity (this is huge)
-unsymmetrical bilateral push/pull, push/push, pull/pull
-grip endurance relative to tool holding - eg sawing different from filing different from hammering, training should reflect some of this

This spawned my offset loaded pole (Hobo Bundle) exercises which took it maybe to an extreme, but I now apply the principles to whatever modality I'm using, to whatever extent possible.

 

[banzaiengr]

I should let this stand as is, but I can't help myself.

There really is very little more that needs to be said from what Al wrote. Now some of you know that I trained under Al and if he told me to do curls in the squat rack I'd do it. But what Al stated was one of the first things he taught me.

The first thing I thought reading this thread is exactly what Al said. Most would do well to walk briskly 60 min. a day and lift something challenging. But what is challenging to one is not challenging to the other and then we get into that whole debate.

I would add then the really hard part. Take in a healthy diet. That is the missing piece for so many who train or think they can train their way out of a poor diet. For those folks it doesn't matter much. Nothing has worked, this workout promises rock hard abs in 14 days and pie tastes good. (I stole the pie part from Al)

If you have a purpose then that's great. That purpose hopefully has you training as you need and eating like you should.

It's my belief that the fitness industry does this purposely. Not much out there is really new. A lot of it was there decades ago so it seems new to the younger generation. So they jump from program to program looking for the Holy Grail but never change their diet. They see the others, some who can get by with eating anything and the ones who are actually eating right but don't speak of it. They wonder, why doesn't that program work for me.

So ya, wrong tool for the job. Or as I see it they're trying to build a dragster. They continually put 87 octane in it and can't figure out why it doesn't run like the other dragsters.

 

[Al Ciampa]

I credit the lion's share if not all of it to change of exercise selection - primarily upper body and core work - leg specific movements didn't change at all. I didn't really alter my park benchish structure, frequency, volume, diet, none of that.

It began with annoyance based on what I noted above, followed by just trying to be mindful of how I was applying myself - movement patterns, leverage issues. Are there any commonalities? Adopting loading patterns closer to the application.



This spawned my offset loaded pole (Hobo Bundle) exercises which took it maybe to an extreme, but I now apply the principles to whatever modality I'm using, to whatever extent possible.

Any specifics? With respect to exercise selection changes?

Curious how changes in leg training did not affect your ability to move heavy objects. From what to what, specifically?

 

[Ryan T]

A lot of times we state a particular goal, but at the same time we're interested in a particular program due to multiple reasons i.e., looks interesting, it's new, we want to be part of the current in crowd (the cool kids are doing it), the list could go on. Other times, we have multiple goals which is really another way of saying you have a short attention span and prone to getting bored with punch the clock, being consistent on the day-in/day-out, not keeping the goal the goal, and you end up with square pegs and round holes.

Recent personal experience:
Stated Goal(s) by 12/31/2018:
Simple
15% BF
Single 32kg press

I was punching the clock in and out with consistent S&S progress, but I was getting bored with the incremental progress and missing other movements like cleans, snatches, etc... I spent too much time on the forums and reading the accomplishments and programs of folks that I admire around here I got distracted and interested in things like weaving in VWC or jumping to a GN program to pay penance for taking a long break from training. All these things under the guise of supporting my 15% BF goal and building general strength that couldn't hurt my Simple goal. Sure it could be true, but if I honest with myself and my assessment of the situation, it takes away from achieving Simple which is the primary goal.

To be fair, plenty of folks in the S1 community tried to remind me to keep the goal the goal.

Humility, consistency and honest self assessment are the key. Set a single goal at a time, achieve it and move forward. If your goals is broad like general health and maintenance, then things like a GPP program with a reasonable diet will be all that you need. If there are more particular targets, then try one particular method and if it isn't or doesn't work the move to something else. But to really know if the program works it should be executed as it was designed.

That's my take.

 

[Ryan T]

I think allot of this has to do with exaggerated marketing and deceptive advertising.

Take Simple and Sinister Adcopy for example
Simple & Sinister will prepare you for almost anything life could throw at you, from carrying a piano upstairs to holding your own in a street fight.

Simple & Sinister will forge a fighter's physique—because the form must follow the function.

Simple & Sinister will give you the strength, the stamina, and the suppleness to play any sport recreationally—and play it well.

It really seems like simple and sinister will give you it all doesn't it? You shouldn't need anything else according to the books description. To a beginner or experienced gullible (myself) this can lead to the spinning of wheels. This can lead to people applying one program to any goal. Especially when deviating from a program is met with a feeling of failure and some criticism.

Maybe I'm off base with this comment but I'm really not sure .

I think your statement is fair. What is implied in the copy is that what most of us really need which is GPP and S&S seems to be an outstanding GPP program. I'm still working towards Simple, but I can tell you that my general strength, endurance and health overall has taken a big jump as I edge closer, especially once I started working in the 32kg. Play any sport well may be a reach, but perhaps S&S gives you a base level of strength and general ability where you have a solid scaffolding to build those skills or enhace the ones you already have.