Quick and Dead

IonRod

Triple-Digit Post Count

Sean M

> 1k Posts
@Jacques van der Merwe I'm hoping Q&D will have some citations to back up the argument against "glycolytic acid bath" type training. I'm a wimp so I don't like that kind of training anyway, but it has been dogma for quite a while - this book (and the Strong Endurance seminar) could be the start of a new conversation around it.
 

Pavel Macek

> 3k Posts
Master Certified Instructor
Many different things work. The question is - for what price. If I have an option of less training, less burn and pain, and better results (and better sleep, recovery, health and longevity), hell I am in! And that is exactly the case of Strong Endurance - the best possible results for the lowest biological cost. After few years of implementing the protocols both with myself and our MMA fighters and other sportsmen (many of them national/international level), I am still amazed. Guys, you will love it, trust me.
 
I've done a fair amount of reading on this, and while it is presumed that at some point ROS overtakes natural antioxidant defenses, I am unaware of a single study that even began to quantify the failure of natural defenses to keep up, or demonstrated a net loss of mitochondria or degradation of any other health markers. It is known that the more often you train in a high ROS producing state, the more robust your defenses become.

The strongest indicator of chronic overtraining is frequent upper respiratory infections. This due to white blood cells being the canary in the coal mine so to say - mitochondria are extremely resistant to acidic conditions as long as they are also low O2, white blood cells on the other hand are a lot less tolerant. Mitochondria do fine at local pH levels which would be lethal if system-wide.

Whatever the mechanism, it is not an easy subject to directly study, I don't expect to see anything more than anecdotal cause/effect evidence. Which still would support the method for training response, but wouldn't necessarily validate the theoretical premise.
 
@Sean M,
I'm not sure I disagree so much as I am unconvinced of the premise, or more precisely am unclear what the boundaries are beyond which the negatives outweigh the positives relative to individual training goals. I don't know that there is a clear answer, this in response to your question re citations.
 

Steve Freides

Forum Administrator
Senior Certified Instructor
Elite Certified Instructor
I'm not sure I disagree so much as I am unconvinced of the premise
@North Coast Miller, we don't say other protocols don't achieve results. @Pavel Macek said it very well above - we have seen more than enough successes to be confident in what we're saying.

"Understanding is a delaying tactic" - is a good Google, and a line in one of Pavel's earlier books as well.

Please feel free to continue to express your skepticism.

I confess I find the entire concept of "exercise science," at least as viewed by many people, puzzling. In my chosen field, music, almost no one cares _why_ certain practices yield positive results - we all do what works. If you asked me what the "premise" was for what I do when I need to learn to play something on the piano, I certainly could _not_ explain what's happening on a physiological level.

Enjoy.

-S-
 

Pavel Macek

> 3k Posts
Master Certified Instructor
- Strong Endurance manual has TONS of references to research papers, and I mean TONS
- the protocols have been tested for few years not only by athletes of many different levels on their own, but under the supervision of high level coaches, plus university staff, tracking lots of various data.

That is the reason why it "took so long" - StrongFirst didn't want to put out a new book out there without very thorough testing. Both results and the science behind is solid.
 

Ray Robinson

Double-Digit Post Count
FWIW, I just got the following update from Amazon regarding Q&D:

Your new estimated delivery date is:
Monday, August 12, 2019 - Tuesday, August 13, 2019

Your previous estimated delivery date was:
Friday, August 16, 2019 - Tuesday, September 10, 2019
 

wespom9

More than 500 posts
Certified Instructor
I was originally August 21-Sept 17 expected date, but now I'm August 16-22. I'm also in Canada and ordered through international shipping.
 

IonRod

Triple-Digit Post Count
I confess I find the entire concept of "exercise science," at least as viewed by many people, puzzling. In my chosen field, music, almost no one cares _why_ certain practices yield positive results - we all do what works. If you asked me what the "premise" was for what I do when I need to learn to play something on the piano, I certainly could _not_ explain what's happening on a physiological level.
That is indeed strange to read you being so puzzled, considering that Pavel cites studies so much in his books and articles. This is how he describes a lot of principles and how we all learn what is better and in which context. The analogy with music does not work as it cannot be compared to fitness-related outcomes.
 

Steve W.

> 1k Posts
That is indeed strange to read you being so puzzled, considering that Pavel cites studies so much in his books and articles. This is how he describes a lot of principles and how we all learn what is better and in which context. The analogy with music does not work as it cannot be compared to fitness-related outcomes.
Sometimes it's studies and physiology, sometimes it's Michael Crichton ("Understanding is a delaying tactic") and Nassim Nicholas Taleb ("Theories come and go; experience stays. Explanations change all the time; experience remains constant"), and sometimes it's just "the Party is always right."

IMO, this is not necessarily contradictory, but speaking to two different things -- the theoretical mindset and the empirical/pragmatic mindset. Neither is necessarily right or wrong (depending on context), and they can complement each other.

However, I do think it's disingenous to use "understanding is a delaying tactic" against someone who questions or just wants to see and understand the science. And if a program is promoted based on underlying science, it seem disingenuous to act surprised that someone might want to understand that science.
 
Last edited:

Steve Freides

Forum Administrator
Senior Certified Instructor
Elite Certified Instructor
However, I do think it's disingenous to use "understanding is a delaying tactic" against someone who questions or just wants to see and understand the science. And if a program is promoted based on underlying science, it seem disingenuous to act surprised that someone might want to understand that science.
1. That phrase was not used "against" anyone, @Steve W.

2. I will not attempt to explain the book's science in a few sentences on an Internet forum. This cannot possibly do justice to what the author has spent literally years researching, testing, and writing.

3. "Disingenuous" - definition:

"not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does."

I am being candid, sincere, and am not in any way pretending I know less about this than I do. I stand firmly by "understanding is a delaying tactic" in my earlier posting.

What makes all of Pavel's works to date such successes is, IMO, his combination of science, experience, creativity in program design, and his unique, accessible writing style. Q&D continues that tradition in all regards. It's packed full of science, it draws on the experience of Pavel and many testers, it reflects his brilliance in designing simple programs that deliver superior results while remaining easy to understand and easy to adhere to, and it continues his wonderful way with words.

The book is full of links to various studies - plenty for anyone interested to be able to follow up on. The two excerpted articles provide quite a few links already for anyone who hasn't yet bought the book or chooses not to - follow the links and decide for yourself. Please see my reply to @IonRod a few posts earlier than this one - it's a link directly to a comment on the question of citations and studies, and Pavel's response to that comment.

Careful or I'll tell you what I really think. :)

-S-
 

Steve W.

> 1k Posts
1. That phrase was not used "against" anyone, @Steve W.
Sure it was. When @North Coast Miller stated that he was unconvinced, you used that phrase to dismiss him and end discussion.

2. I will not attempt to explain the book's science in a few sentences on an Internet forum. This cannot possibly do justice to what the author has spent literally years researching, testing, and writing.
Saying that you are not going to try to convince him is fair enough. You personally have no responsibility to do so. But saying "understanding is a delaying tactic" implies that wanting to know more is misguided.

3. "Disingenuous" - definition:

"not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does."

I am being candid, sincere, and am not in any way pretending I know less about this than I do. I stand firmly by "understanding is a delaying tactic" in my earlier posting.
Okay. It APPEARS disingenuous to me when you respond to a substantive question by dismissing it. I would not have the same reaction to just saying that he should read the book because it answers the question better than you can (or are willing to in forum posts). Dismissing the question just appears defensive and evasive.

Please see my reply to @IonRod a few posts earlier than this one - it's a link directly to a comment on the question of citations and studies, and Pavel's response to that comment.
The two links that Pavel provided in that comment were to articles supporting statements in the Q&D excerpt about the efficacy of antioxidant dietary supplements -- not really what anyone here is discussing.

I'm not criticizing Q&D. I haven't read it yet, but I have purchased it and look forward to reading it.
 
Top Bottom