T Nation

"The Neurotyping System is Nonsense"?

Hi, Christian

There is a comment from the head of the FPA (Fitness Professionals Association)
Mr. Kalashnikov @kalashnikovdm (https://www.instagram.com/kalashnikovdm/)

The comment is hear https://www.instagram.com/p/B5PtbaQqikE/

The FPA is one of the largest and most respected educational center in Russia for the personal fitness trainers.

Short history:
FPA made a post about the report according to which each person is genetically unique and requires a special approach. The reaction to exercises is very individual and must be taken into account. Moreover, science should be the basis on which the personal trainer imposes his experience.

The user @har.mih asked about the conclusions of the report, because they are not in the post
@my.sport.life commented: once again I’m convinced that C. Thibaudeau’s approach to training on neurotypes has logic :)))

and @kalashnikovdm answered (translated very close to the original): no, Thibaudeau’s ideas - stupidity, wild simplification of neurophysiology and far-fetched. The person neurological profile is not described by simple options, as he described it. And there is no simple, easily explainable and universal connection of the neurotype with the reaction to physical exercises.

Can you comment it hear or their (on FPA instagram page)
Thank you

Addition - Commentary on the statement that the connection between the system of neurotypes and physiological adaptations (reactions) to physical activity is unscientific. (please do not confuse, we are not talking about motivation, personal feelings, only physiological reactions of the body)

The neurotyping stuff is very interesting and i believe legit, but I have seen a lot of people stressing about what neurotype they are. So rather than simplifying training it has led to more paralysis by analysis.

Just my 2cents

Why? What’s the purpose of this thread?

So, you’re saying that there’s someone on some corner of the internet that has a philosophy to training that doesn’t exactly align with CT’s? This is nothing less than shocking.

In all seriousness, even if you read Paul Carter’s forum on this site there are plenty of his philosophies that are not consistent with Wendler’s or CT’s and often directly oppose them. And, if they were just redundant and agreed on all aspects, what would be the point of having different trainers, coaches, etc…?


Hi guys.

  1. I like the idea of ​​neurotyping, I pass the test and I use it in my programs.
  2. I understand that there are different opinions and sometimes they are opposite. This is good, because the truth is out there. But there are a lot of ideas based on false data, not scientific.
  3. Mr Kalashnikov is not “someone on some corner of the internet” He is the head of one of the authoritative educational organization for personal trainer in Russia (this is like NASM or ACSM in the USA, well, not so cool of course :))))

As a person who thinks and as a person who likes the theory of Mr CT, I cannot ignore such comments. I admit that Mr Kalashnikov said it not very respectfully. Therefore, I would like to hear the opinion of the author of the idea. Ideally, of course, I would be glad to see a reasoned argument, because “Discussio mater veritas est”.

1 Like

Isn’t this guy into weapons?

:slight_smile: the same surname

You already have his opinion, he is the author.

This seems unlikely, but even if it actually happened, do you really believe it would add any value to the conversation?

This hunt for “one true training method” feels counterproductive to getting results. “One truth” works really well in the X-Files, but in the world of getting bigger and stronger it’s less so. Lots of different methods work, and work well.

TL:DR: if neurotyping works for you, use it. The unlikely spectacle of two experts arguing online should have absolutely no effect on whether something has value to you.

1 Like

This is an easy statement to make and clearly true. That doesn’t preclude the ability to, or validity of, group characteristics.

If I say you can divide the entire population of the world into 3 groups:

  • people who prefer sweet to savoury snacks
  • people who prefer savoury to sweet snacks
  • people who are ambivalent between the two

teh fact that they are all unique with unique preferences absolutely does not mean that my paradigm wouldn’t correctly capture 99%+ of a population, and on that basis make a recommendation on a related topic.

im not an expert on neurotyping, but I don’t believe CT is sayning that these neurotypes are all somehow sharing specific gene sequences that predetermine their neurotype. Understanding how people think and feel is a perfectly reasonable basis to suggest what type of training might best suit them.

I like to lift heavy weights for lower reps, I dislike high rep work. Im sure there are assessments out there that would draw this conclusion and tell me Im better off lifting heavy weights for low reps. The fact that I’m genetically unique does not make their assessment or recommendation wrong.

Also, considering the PT profession is all about the interaction between a trainer than their client, with the trainers value being almost entirely dependent on their ability to coash the individual, how is it an any way surprising that the head of the FPA would say broad groupings are inferior to a tailored approach by a fitness professional?

Neither his statement nor your question are adding any value here.

1 Like

No, in fact CT admits that neurotype can change along your life because of certain things like if you go to the military or stress will cause your neurotype to go to the right


Well. Thank you guys for your opinion. I agree with almost everyone that you wrote. But not completely.
Neurotypes are good for me and I use it for my own training. But I can’t recommend the method, I can not train other people based on a method that for some reason suits just me. I want to do this on the basis of proven facts, on the basis of scientific research.

If Christian spoke only of the of neurotypes as a system of motivation, then there would be no questions.
But Christian connects the neurological profile with a reaction to physical activity (dominance of the neurological, muscle component).

In accordance with science, the reaction to physical activity is associated with the type of muscle fiber. This is a proven fact.

But Christian says that there is no direct connection between the neurotype and the type of muscle fiber.

Therefore, I want to deal with this issue in detail and hear Christian’s opinion (if he think it possible of course)

A dispute (with facts) between two experts is always good (IMHO), because the listener can evaluate the problem from different angles and draw his own conclusion.

I was inaccurate. Commentary on the statement that the connection between the system of neurotypes and physiological adaptations (reactions) to physical activity is unscientific. (please do not confuse, we are not talking about motivation, personal feelings, only physiological reactions of the body)

So don’t. When I discuss training with people, I make sure to say “What I would do is this”, not “What you should do is this”


There really aren’t a lot of these in this endeavor (or any human pursuit, really)

1 Like

Train them with a method that works.

You have to remember that nearly every theory/model we have of the universe is wrong at a fundamental level. I mean, we don’t even really know as a species how gravity works, and yet my kids still use slides without a problem. Scientific theories are mostly just models that help us to make sense of the world, their only value is in their application. In this case, if neurotyping helps you to train yourself and others more effectively then great, use it.

1 Like

Not sure it holds true for theories, but every model is from its inception, and by design, wrong. The moment it closes a system, putting boundaries on the variables that can have an impact, it is inaccurate to some degree.

1 Like

I’m fairly sleep deprived, so that one may have to slowly percolate through my brain, but probably true.

As Dan John says “it’s always more complicated than that”.

  1. It’s a profile, not a topological map.
  2. Medicine and Psychology are largely a process of effectively and usefully putting people into broad categories based on sets of simple options. Any system that seeks to put people into smaller categories must first place them into larger categories.
  3. In practice, there is no “simple, universal” connection of the neurotype to physical exercises, and neurotyping does not propose a SIMPLE, UNIVERSAL connection between neurotype category and physical exercise, rather it proposes a NOT UN-Manageably complex, highly generalizeable connection.

The question is, does a trainer or trainee do better to put someone (or themselves) into categories or to treat people as if they can not be placed into categories, requiring a training guru with special abilities.

The irony is that half of “science” is about putting things into categories and the other half is about making predictions and extrapolations based on the categorization, but the concept that everyone is genetically unique to the point of being uncategorizable is inconsistent with the proposition that “science should be the basis on which the personal trainer imposes his experience” as you put it. If anything, genetics specifically posits that people can be categorized based on discrete (though highly interacting) bits of instructions. If the person quoted was trying to be true to science they should be looking for ways to categorize rather than disregarding them.

Psychological traits https://www.livescience.com/41313-personality-traits.html are HIGHLY predictive of performance at a much more complex level than “response to exercise.”

1 Like

What are you talking about here? You want to know CT’s opinion on his own system he devised? Clearly, CT thinks it has value and explains it in detail in his articles. Asking him to defend it against someone who doesn’t like it (and may not have bothered to fully understand it or try it) is a bit rude.

You say you are “a person who thinks”, yet you seem to want others to do the thinking for you. Read CT’s explanation of neurotyping, read the counter-argument you are bringing up here, and think for yourself who you find the most compelling.


You also have to understand that training, building muscle, strength etc goes beyond the scope of muscle fiber, hormonal equilibrium or personality. A 2A for instance or whatever could train with a program that is not tailored specifically towards him and still grow.

This system is more geared towards athletes, or people that found themselves lost.

1 Like