The eternal wonders of mathematical objectivity.
7 October 2005If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I think the main reason I love weight training is the objective benchmark of poundage. One of my beginners bought it all into focus when she pulled (deadlifted) ten perfect reps with 100-pounds. In the larger cosmic sense it wasnt all that much or all that significantjust one lone individual in one rural Pennsyl-tucky garage lifting something shed never done before. No big deal when compared to the larger things in life but for her and me at that time and place it was monumental. After all the previous Sunday she had done deadlifts for the first time ever. What an awkward struggle that first session had been. Deadlifts are a complex bio-mechanical exercise and what seems as first glance so easybend down, grasp a barbell then stand erect, becomes a study in frustration akin to someone handing you a tennis racquet for the first time and saying hit it (not only) over the net and into that box on the far side of the net. A daunting task but no more so than someone telling you to stand erect using Sumo stance and do this never-before-done exercise in front of two multi-time world champions, a TV film crew complete with lights and in front of five peers. And make sure you get it right. That was on Sunday. Tuesdays session, just her and I was relaxed and after the madhouse Sunday this quiet session allowed us to really dig in and learn the exercise.
We made some foot and hand placement adjustments, talked about then practiced establishing and maintaining the structural integrity of the spine. I showed her how to focus the eyes on a single spot on the garage rafters and we put theory into practice and performed three sets of 10-reps. Thursday it all came together: one more foot placement adjustment, we used a double overhand grip instead of a supine grip. It all fell into place. The 45-pound bar had been problematic on Sunday; Thursday on the 3rd and final set using a modified Sumo and dead-bang perfect technique 100×10 went upflawlessly, perfectly and with strength to spare. Being Irish, I wanted to break into the Riverdance at the conclusion of the final rep. Was that good? She asked? No that was freaking GREAT! My glee was inexpressible and inarticulate. The whole episode bought sharply into focus the eternal beauty of iron pumping: assuming the technical boundaries of a particular lift are respected and not violated, the beauty of progressive resistance training is its numerical certainty. My lady had pulled 45 x 10 five days before and now she pulled 100×10 without the slightest hint of technical disintegration - au contraire, if anything the technical execution on day III was light-years superior. Any way you slice it, this represents a 110% increase in performance in three sessions. And her accomplishment was mathematically objective no subjectivity needed.
Unlike a gymnastic coach or a tennis instructor that might tell you, that looked a hell-of-a-lot better or that triple-lindy was super-fine with weights, better is not a matter of debate, interpretation or outside perceptions; improvement is a quantifiable mathematical certainty. This is one reason Purposefully Primitives are such sticklers for technique as the only way you can mess up the objective nature of weight training is by fudging the techniques. This can be purposeful or unconscious but either is to be avoided at all cost. In the squat you can cut the depth, make the lift easier by not going as low as required on each repetition. In the bench press you can bounce the bar off the chest or lift the butt to improve leverage. In the deadlift you can bounce the bar between reps to create momentum or use a rounded back or not lock out each rep totally. Subconscious cheating occurs when with each subsequent set the technique become ever more lax. This is a subtle problem because often the trainee is unaware that they are making things easier for themselves by blurring the technical boundaries. The overt technical fudging comes later when the trainee knows the ropes and consciously cheats to either be able to use more poundage or squeeze out additional repetitions.
Having a religious reverence for technique allows you to maintain the pristine objectivity that is the cornerstone, the intrinsic beauty, the eternal beauty of dealing with a barbell or dumbbells. Unlike lifes other uncertainties, poundage is consistent. 100-pounds today is the same as 100-pounds on Thursday. As the rock-and-roll Spinoza, Henry Rollins, once quipped (and I paraphrase) friends may come and go, emotions and ideas may shift and recalibrate themselves, but 200-pounds is 200-pounds and not subject to whims and changes in the social climate. And this is a good thing; there are very few things in this life that you can hang your hat on. Increasing a properly performed bench press by 15-pounds over previous best or adding 3-reps to a maximum poundage deadlift in reason for joy and celebration. The eternal wonders of mathematical objectivity provide us with a life-constant, an immutable set of guideposts and guidelines that provide us unyielding benchmarks against which we can evaluate our efforts. And in this ever-changing world in which we live in (Thanks Paul) poundage and technique and a few primitive exercises provide us the tools and benchmarks with which to transform our body.
Tags:Popularity: 1% [?]
Related Posts:
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
