[quote]slimjim wrote:
Well, what the fuck are your credintials or your experiment to back up your theory? It’s nice you get to sit back and question without any evidence for your own opinion other than “I didn’t even know that the areas of the brain that control those functions operated together!”
And it is perfectly fine to question the writers on this site, but saying "What the fuck is Chad smoking and where can I get some.
Can anyone explain this seemingly acid-induced insight?" is not questioning, it’s flat out calling them out without anything to back your own opinion up. Your attitude is the one that is lacking here jackass. You can call us retards and claim you’re fighting against the mob mindset, but all you’re really doing is coming off as an asshole. [/quote]
Hmm…I don’t remember talking to you, taking any shots at you, or anything. But yet you still provide the website to an online dictionary, telling me I’m stupid. And then you lecture me about my bad attitude. Wow.
By the way, I dont need any evidence to question a claim. Have you ever taken any class, at any college, watched the news, read a book, or talked to somebody outside of the gym? If so, you would know this.
I assume (and I may be wrong) that the reason CW picked something a bit more difficult than normal counting is to amplify the effects it has, for demonstration purposes (which, btw, it isn’t an “experiment,” it’s only a demonstration). If counting backwards by 2s will keep you from making a lift, then counting normally will also hinder performance. Not to the same degree, but slightly.
relax man…people are just flipping you a little shit…it happens to everyone around here…
as far as the counting thing goes…counting reps is fine…but counting tempo is largly a waste of time…just lift the weight…[/quote]
I know they are. That doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is that everytime someone has an opinion that differs form T-Nation, everyone on the board starts taking shots at them. It’s ridiculous. I thought we were here to learn more about training, not champion Biotest.
pookie
once again trying to prove how smart you think you are is making you look dumber than you probably are.
I think we could all agree that focusing on something other than your lift while doing maximal poundages would have a negative effect on the result.
Counting to 10 on warm-up reps probably does not have the same result.
knuckles–
please STFU!
You are questioning things you don’t even understand. Or is there a neuro-biological major at your middle school.
Have you been certified by the lunch-room lady as head of neurological studies? Do you even understand neural pathways and what slight interuptions in that process might result in.
Me neither. It isn’t always a bad thing to question that which you don’t understand, but to take a leader in his field to task for something you have no knowlege of makes you look-------well—your age.
[quote]knuckles wrote:
slimjim wrote:
Well, what the fuck are your credintials or your experiment to back up your theory? It’s nice you get to sit back and question without any evidence for your own opinion other than “I didn’t even know that the areas of the brain that control those functions operated together!”
And it is perfectly fine to question the writers on this site, but saying "What the fuck is Chad smoking and where can I get some.
Can anyone explain this seemingly acid-induced insight?" is not questioning, it’s flat out calling them out without anything to back your own opinion up. Your attitude is the one that is lacking here jackass. You can call us retards and claim you’re fighting against the mob mindset, but all you’re really doing is coming off as an asshole.
Hmm…I don’t remember talking to you, taking any shots at you, or anything. But yet you still provide the website to an online dictionary, telling me I’m stupid. And then you lecture me about my bad attitude. How about this?[/quote]
You weren’t talking to me either, and who cares?
You are truly stupid. There is a difference between “questioning a claim” and calling out a recognized expert and saying he’s full of shit. You can question all you want, but saying that CW is full of shit without anything to prove your point makes you look like a total ass.
[quote]knuckles wrote:
Oh, and here’s a thought for the admin. Did you ever consider that there may be a difference between simply counting and vocalizing the numbers? This would use different parts of your brain, INCLUDING those controlling complex muscles called vocal cords. The two activities are unrelatable.
I’m sure if CW had a ‘background’ in neurophysiology, he wouldn’t design such a poor experiment.
Here’s an experiment for CW to try. Count backwards from 100 to 1. Now count fowards from 1 to 100. Which one was easier? Looks like a complication of the process so he got the results he wanted.[/quote]
In the article Chad suggests counting conventionally, forward by ones if you insist on counting tempo, precisely because it is easier then counting any other way.
Why do you feel the need to put “background” in quotes?? I love the nerve of some of these guys to insult people who do this for a living.
Anyway… The reason he has them count backwards by sevens is to show an extreme situation. Lets say that counting forward to the number four in 10x easier for your brain…but still it requires SOME attention. The counting will then distract 1/10 of the attention that you used for couting by 7’s. If you are going for a heavy ass load, the last thing you need to be doing is counting… because it COULD be the difference between lifting and not lifting… I think that is the take home point.
It appears that you are in the know!! Please, could you start training Chad personally so he can benefit from your immense knowledge and pass it on to us in his articles?
Listen, the point is not if you can count, or chew gum, or masturbate during a lift. The point is that any mental activity that isn’t necessary negatively affects your ability to produce force, even if it is minimal. Why the hell would anyone want to reduce his or her ability to produce force? His advice is to not worry about the minutia, instead worry about lifting.
If you don’t get it, all is well in the world and the sun won’t explode. It will be just another case of a know-it-all not getting it, and that happens every day, all day.
Please respond to my post and point out how you are smarter than the rest of us. It will be a great honor for a genius like you to show me the way.
Actually, wait about ten years to post anything please. And in that ten years learn to question without assuming.
I agree that the order should have been reversed. He should have had the person count backwards for the first set, then not do it for the second set. Doing it the other way just leaves an opening for all kinds of questions.
And, again, whats with gang up on the person who doesn’t agree with an author?
[/quote]
Because you’re being a disrespectful punk. Because you weigh 160 pounds. Because you have been training one year (according to your profile) and think you know more than a respected strength coach with a background in hard science. Because you’re not very smart and it amuses us.
[quote]knuckles wrote:
I’ll try it next time I’m in the gym, although I’ve never had counting interfer with my concentration.
As a side note, I wonder why Chad didn’t just have them count to 3 or 4? Maybe it was because this didn’t affect their results and he needed some snazzy new fact for his article. I’m calling bullshit on that one.
And, again, whats with gang up on the person who doesn’t agree with an author? I’m a smartass, but I’ve seen it done to people coming with a completely polite question. This mob mentality at T-Nation is really dumb. You guys need to stop, for lack of a better term, sucking each others dicks and think for yourselves.
[/quote]
Dear Knuckles,
Well you have completely screwed the pooch on this one. If you had simply said “I don’t get it - please explain it to me” you would have received much better replies. I have seen plenty of people ask polite questions and get excellent answers, so I don’t know what the fuck you are talking about with your “everybody gang up on someone asking a question” mentality.
Your pissy little attitude and lashing out like a little shit has completely detracted from any rational arguement you could make, so good luck with gaining anything useful out of this thread.
[quote]I assume (and I may be wrong) that the reason CW picked something a bit more difficult than normal counting is to amplify the effects it has, for demonstration purposes (which, btw, it isn’t an “experiment,” it’s only a demonstration). If counting backwards by 2s will keep you from making a lift, then counting normally will also hinder performance. Not to the same degree, but slightly.
That’s my take on it anyway.[/quote]
Oh, you got me, it’s not an experiment. Shucks.
[quote]please STFU!
You are questioning things you don’t even understand. Or is there a neuro-biological major at your middle school. [/quote]
Yes, counting to four is a complex process which requires years of schooling to understand. What the hell? When somebody says that I shouldn’t talk while walking because my ‘neural tracks will be flooded’ and I’ll trip, I’m going to call bullshit.
I don’t know why you’re quoting my response to slimjim, but whatever.
And, OneEye, what I did was question a claim. Whether or not you want to make that into news worthy material is up to you.
[quote]
Because you have been training one year (according to your profile) and think you know more than a respected strength coach with a background in hard science. [/quote]
I’m going to ignore your personal attacks . I don’t know anything about CW. I’ve never met him, talked to him, or seen him. All I know is plenty of ‘experts’ in ‘hard sciences’ have been completely and obviously wrong. As this site points out CONTINUOUSLY! So I guess it’s people like YOU that follow the newest routines in whatever bodybuilding mag is on the stand, huh?
Your pissy little attitude and lashing out like a little shit has completely detracted from any rational arguement you could make, so good luck with gaining anything useful out of this thread.[/quote]
Yeah good point. I’ll be sure to bend over whenever I ask a question in the future.
Please respond to my post and point out how you are smarter than the rest of us. It will be a great honor for a genius like you to show me the way.
Actually, wait about ten years to post anything please. And in that ten years learn to question without assuming.
Rolo.[/quote]
I never said that I was smarter than the rest of you. But I’m smart enough to know that 90% of the people in this world are really god damned stupid and impressionable.
Oh, really, not to worry about minutiae like whether or not you’re counting during a lift? Gee…
Yeah, personally, I don’t pay attention to tempo either. Why, because fuck it thats why. Lifting the weight with a 5-1-3 tempo isn’t going to make you bigger or stronger.
It’s the principle. What is a neural tract, why is it clogged up, and why is neural input decending? And why would this matter at all. It is simply a god damned goofy tip and I don’t get it.
I am extremely sarcastic in person, suffice to say that sarcasm does not work as well in print…
hint hint
Anyway, if counting does not interfere with your lifting, fan-friggin-tastic.
I know a few people who really lose strength when counting tempo. I also do.
Comparing “walking and chewing” to “lifting and counting” is just a little unfair, don’t you think? Slightly hypocritical perhaps to minimize a supposedly crappy theory with an eqully crappy anaolgy?
All of your posts come across as an attempt to question a theory without a real rebuttal. Just saying “bullshit” doesn’t make you right. I would bet that CW has invested quite a bit of time into researching his statements. Have you? Have you read any psychology books? What about neuoroscience? What about real damn practical application? For sure you did not apply, as you said that you will try it next time (the counting).
Expect to receive posts that are, umm, “unfriendly” until you prepare your arguments a little better.
I don’t understand why you act like this is such a radical idea. Concentrating on the task at hand is always beneficial.
Just go read Chad’s article about lifting fast, and maybe you will begin to learn something about motor recruitment and why it is beneficial.
The power of the brain to help you perform feats of strength is enormous. You don’t have to psyche yourself out or anything, but you are selling yourself short if you are trying to move maximal weights and you allow any other thought to creep into your head except making the lift.
Instead of trying to keep on being the tough guy, maybe you should just admit that you don’t know what you are talking about and that you overstated your point. Which was basically, “I don’t understand that the body and brain work as a cohesive unit, can someone please explain this to me?” Just temper you statements partner.
It’s the principle. What is a neural tract, why is it clogged up, and why is neural input decending? And why would this matter at all. It is simply a god damned goofy tip and I don’t get it.[/quote]
