Topic: I really just don't get it......... What is the "secret?"

[ViKtoricus]

Aren't certain things universal?

I understand that there is such a thing as individuality but...

Isn't that what I said? You start with the factors that will typically cause strength increases for most lifters (the universal part), then you see which ones have the greatest training effect for you (the individual part) and emphasize those in your training.

Excellent accomodation!

[Andy Dick]

Even scientific studies statistically have outliers (those at the top and bottom end...ie those that saw superior effects and those that saw inferior effects).  A scientific study seeks to see what works for the most of the population but not all.  If the coach was to stop there it would be a travesty (and it happens with some coaches).  That is why individual variation is needed so those outliers are serviced.  For those that saw superior results this may be the best training stimuli for them for those that saw inferior it would be horrible to keep those on it.  Even more, finding the average does not necessarily mean that is the best either, it just says that most of the population of the study saw around X amout of increase compared to another or a control there may still be a better method out there than the one tested.

Other can of worms is the difficulty in testint itself.  With variation on individuals life style, adherence to training regime, nutrition, supplementation, difficulty in conducting long term studies, etc etc, the list goes on but we need not necessarily go down that road.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

It is my contention that "scientific" studies which try to measure human psychology are completely and utterly useless. They are merely measures of how people react to those studies.

[Arturo Gómez]

It´s right. Still with statistical significance, the results is extrapolable only to a population similar to the sample. "Pigs of 3 - 6 month gowth better with food A than with food B". A team of weighlifter is not so homogeneous that pigs or poultry, so conclusions are relatives. In that sense, is interesant the other analysis. The outliers generally have factors differents to the generally of the sample, and sometimes they give too, important information.
Statistic and experimental design are very important tools. But no more than tools.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

I'd say programming studies are far less useful than the experience gained by lifting and coaching, which sees far more lifting and a far larger population.

[Matt Erdman]

I'd say programming studies are far less useful than the experience gained by lifting and coaching, which sees far more lifting and a far larger population.

I would certainly agree. Take for instance the Pierce/Stone system that seems to defy the research, but produces the goods in real life.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

In short, more can be learned from simply going to weightlifting gyms and observing weightlifting than performing studies. The studies waste massive amounts of time in such things as statistics, research design, administrative paperwork, recruiting subjects, organizing subject testing, testing, etc. I would throw out a rough estimate that at least 20 times less observation of lifting occurs per hour spent and even the observation time achieved is manipulated, false, and mostly irrelevant due to central planning.

[Andy Dick]

What exactly is there pierce/stone method is there anything that I can look at that lets me read up on it.