all posts post new thread

Kettlebell Program Hopping

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Steve W. said:
This is why I specified "performance goals" (a specific result of the program), rather than just "goals," which could include very general reasons.

I don't think it's bad to have goals in any sense, and I certainly think it's good to have a purpose. But I often see on this forum an assumption that having specific performance goals is necessary or important to effective programming or training ("What are your goals?"), so I was pushing back against that assumption.
Click to expand...

I approve of this message.
 
North Coast Miller said:
You could also do more or less what I have done for years now and steal a page from Maxwell’s playbook. His concept of balancing push,pull,hinge,squat with plug in swappable exercises or set/rep schemes has served me well.
Click to expand...

Push/pull/hinge/squat is a decent starting place, and a solid foundation.

Or push/pull/legs, if you want to make it even simpler.

But I also find that it can lead to under development of athletic aspects due to it's lack of lateral, rotational, and cross-body aspects.

My resiliency, injury prevention, agility, balance, and performance typically goes up when I take a break from mostly training the prime movers in the transverse plane from time to time.

Does that transform such training from GPP to SPP? I dunno...

But one thing I always try to remember is that S&C was developed as a compliment to *sport*, and for S&C methods to work for a desk jockey as they do on athletes, something needs to replace the 'sport' activity for balance.
 
watchnerd said:
But one thing I always try to remember is that S&C was developed as a compliment to *sport*, and for S&C methods to work for a desk jockey as they do on athletes, something needs to replace the 'sport' activity for balance.
Click to expand...

Excellent point.

I think kettlebell programs do this well -- acting as both the S&C, and the sport. So while some "real" S&C coaches think of kettlebells as a sub-optimal S&C tool, they're missing the forest for the trees. It's a GREAT tool for complete training.
 
Steve W. said:
This is why I specified "performance goals" (a specific result of the program), rather than just "goals," which could include very general reasons.

I don't think it's bad to have goals in any sense, and I certainly think it's good to have a purpose. But I often see on this forum an assumption that having specific performance goals is necessary or important for effective programming or training ("What are your goals?"), so I was pushing back against that assumption.
Click to expand...
It does beg the question though,

If OP doesn’t have performance goals, is his program hopping even an issue?
 
Philippe Geoffrion said:
It does beg the question though,

If OP doesn’t have performance goals, is his program hopping even an issue?
Click to expand...
I’d actually argue that if program hopping keeps someone engaged and working out, then it’s for the best. The best program is the one that gets you in the gym and gets you moving. I think that’s the real secret of GPP, if you’re looking forward to getting on the field, or under the bar, or whatever, you’re going to keep doing it. If you can do something like S&S everyday and punch the clock, but don’t really enjoy it that feels like the wrong activity to be doing.

My intro to kettlebells was S&S 1.0, and I did it pretty consistently for close to a year and was close to Timed Simple until I aggravated my back chopping down a tree and had to step away from it. Since then I come back to the program for chunks of time and am still slowly making my way towards Sinister, but when it gets boring…I do something else. That way it feels like coming back to an old friend when I restart, rather than a chore. Better to play the long game than force myself to do a workout that I’m not into. But I will say, I really like Heavy Get-ups…so it’s always fun to come back to.
 
watchnerd said:
Push/pull/hinge/squat is a decent starting place, and a solid foundation.

Or push/pull/legs, if you want to make it even simpler.

But I also find that it can lead to under development of athletic aspects due to it's lack of lateral, rotational, and cross-body aspects.

My resiliency, injury prevention, agility, balance, and performance typically goes up when I take a break from mostly training the prime movers in the transverse plane from time to time.

Does that transform such training from GPP to SPP? I dunno...

But one thing I always try to remember is that S&C was developed as a compliment to *sport*, and for S&C methods to work for a desk jockey as they do on athletes, something needs to replace the 'sport' activity for balance.
Click to expand...

For me, work is the benchmark of functionality. Beyond that, infrequent hiking, paddling etc. I always include a bit of cross bracing when doing “abs”, and the beauty of the template is swapping out variations of exercise that fit the basic call-out but might easily include other dynamics.

Only so many training hours in a year.
 
Philippe Geoffrion said:
It does beg the question though,

If OP doesn’t have performance goals, is his program hopping even an issue?
Click to expand...
Pedantic semantic note:
This isn't exactly a correct usage of "beg the question."

Begging the question does not just mean "raises the question" or "prompts the question." It is commonly used that way, and at this point the incorrect usage is more common than the correct usage, so it's probably futile to do anything but just accept the newer incorrect usage. The phrase also has a vexed history because it's an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek phrase, and the relationship between the English words and the original meaning has become a bit distorted.

Begging the question is a type of logical fallacy where the conclusion is assumed by the premise. It is unpersuasive because it leaves the validity of the premise unexamined. It's assuming something is true, rather than proving it is true. For instance, an example of begging the question is "Murder is always wrong; therefore abortion is always wrong." This argument requires the assumption that abortion is murder, and is only persuasive if you already accept the truth of that assumption.

Now to the present case.
If the question in the post quoted above were phrased as a statement ("Since the OP doesn't have performance goals, his program hopping isn't an issue"), that would be begging the question because it assumes that program hopping is only an issue if one has performance goals.

The "correct" usage is confusing because the phrase "begging the question" is a characterization and criticism of an argument, usually without reference to any specific or actual question that is "begged." The misunderstanding of this phrase became a pet peeve of mine because I had a college professor who frequently accused students of "begging the question." But he never said what question we were begging and it wasn't clear what he was trying to say to us. After class, students would talk about the discussion, and when this begging the question business came up, we'd look at each other and ask, "What question?" Eventually, I learned the actual meaning of the phrase as the professor was using it.

At first I felt shamefully ignorant, but soon decided to purge my own shame by making it one of my missions in life to shame others ;-).

To me, the question "If OP doesn’t have performance goals, is his program hopping even an issue?" prompts (not begs) a few additional questions (which have already been raised in some form in previous posts on this thread):
  • What do we mean by "performance goals"? Where do performance goals fall in a spectrum of very specific to very general goals, reasons, and purposes?
  • What exactly do we mean by program hopping?
  • In what ways, or under what circumstances is program hopping problematic?
To a great extent, I think the answers are subjective and individual. The main idea I've tried to share in this thread is that my two main goals in training are to enjoy it and to maintain the continuity of the training process, and that when I do both those things (as I define them for myself, which depends on a bunch of other personal values, reasons, and purposes) I get positive results in some form or fashion, even though those results might not represent any kind of intentional or specific goal, or even a measurable increase in performance (although it usually does).

My mantra is "keep going." And if I keep going I know I'll get somewhere. But I try not to worry too much about the destination, or even the journey, and just focus on putting one foot in front of the other.
 
Steve W. said:
Pedantic semantic note:
This isn't exactly a correct usage of "beg the question."

Begging the question does not just mean "raises the question" or "prompts the question." It is commonly used that way, and at this point the incorrect usage is more common than the correct usage, so it's probably futile to do anything but just accept the newer incorrect usage. The phrase also has a vexed history because it's an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek phrase, and the relationship between the English words and the original meaning has become a bit distorted.

Begging the question is a type of logical fallacy where the conclusion is assumed by the premise. It is unpersuasive because it leaves the validity of the premise unexamined. It's assuming something is true, rather than proving it is true. For instance, an example of begging the question is "Murder is always wrong; therefore abortion is always wrong." This argument requires the assumption that abortion is murder, and is only persuasive if you already accept the truth of that assumption.

Now to the present case.
If the question in the post quoted above were phrased as a statement ("Since the OP doesn't have performance goals, his program hopping isn't an issue"), that would be begging the question because it assumes that program hopping is only an issue if one has performance goals.

The "correct" usage is confusing because the phrase "begging the question" is a characterization and criticism of an argument, usually without reference to any specific or actual question that is "begged." The misunderstanding of this phrase became a pet peeve of mine because I had a college professor who frequently accused students of "begging the question." But he never said what question we were begging and it wasn't clear what he was trying to say to us. After class, students would talk about the discussion, and when this begging the question business came up, we'd look at each other and ask, "What question?" Eventually, I learned the actual meaning of the phrase as the professor was using it.

At first I felt shamefully ignorant, but soon decided to purge my own shame by making it one of my missions in life to shame others ;-).
Click to expand...
This reminds me of my soapbox on gargoyles and grotesques...
 
Anna C said:
Wonder why that quote appears to be from me, instead of @Steve W. ? That's weird.
Click to expand...
I noticed that, and that my emoticon was changed to an emoji/smiley.

Even with a winking emoticon, it's not the most noble sentiment, so I felt bad that it was attributed to someone else.

I'm guessing that @Philippe Geoffrion started to include a quote from you in his post along with one from me, and then deleted yours before posting it, but inadvertently retained your tag.
 
Steve W. said:
I noticed that, and that my emoticon was changed to an emoji/smiley.

Even with a winking emoticon, it's not the most noble sentiment, so I felt bad that it was attributed to someone else.

I'm guessing that @Philippe Geoffrion started to include a quote from you in his post along with one from me, and then deleted yours before posting it, but inadvertently retained your tag.
Click to expand...
Yes. This is correct.

It took me the years from when I became a member to now to understand how the quote function works. My technology incompetence is showing…
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom