Blog

Sound bites vs Support, Details and Specifics of Circumstances

Sound bite – A short, catchy statement that meets the minuscule attention span of the vast majority of the general public. Sound bites serve the needs of those who wish to generate bias and/or to appear intelligent without the burden of context or detailed understanding, both of which are requirements of truth. Sound bites are commonly repeated ad nauseum as “std’s” (socially transmitted disinformation).

Sound bites are falsely empowering and offer no support or validation by which to generate a conclusion, or conduct a coherent debate. Sound bites are key to marketing, misinformation, and the generation and perpetuation of “belief teams”.

Examples:

“Integrated exercise is functional. Isolated exercise is nonfunctional”

 “Muscles don’t matter. It’s all about fascia.”

“Bones don’t even touch, they float.”

“The eccentric is stronger than the concentric contraction.”

“It’s bad for your knees!”

“Exercise is all about movement.”

“Don’t train muscles, train motion.”

“Tight hamstrings cause back pain.”

It seems most trainers seeking education want to jump straight into the performance of exercises. The problem typically are that:

1. They don’t have a tolerance for detail.
2. They don’t know the language that represents the details.
3. They don’t know the principles that represent the details of decision making.
4. Therefore, they can’t even discuss or dissect exercise, much less modify it for themselves or others.

When they are presented with requisite information, they don’t find it at all applicable. It’s boring. Even those who are tolerant of it, or even excel at it, display no evidence of understanding with they walk into a gym or grab a dumbbell.

I agree, the exercises sciences as taught in school are rarely presented in an applicable manner. Mitochondria cannot determine nor influence how one should best execute any exercise or activity. And torque is so poorly presented that no one ever figures out that resistance IS torque. Strength IS torque. They say “shear is bad” not realizing that human movement is produced by shear. They dismiss “isolation” while confusing single joint movement with “muscle isolation”, two issues that are unrelated with one being valuable and the other being impossible. And they will argue to support the superficial and empty sound bites, incapable of even hearing the realities…. because they don’t understand the language.

It’s sad but true, but after educating trainers and therapists both domestically and internationally since 1989 it has become obvious that the Exercise Professional’s education absolutely must start with myth-busting and deprogramming. The barriers to learning are just too overwhelming when one is defending unfounded and poorly supported beliefs held to under the guise of “science”. When one adopts information as his/her identity they only accept education that supports what they believe, and dismiss that which objectively refutes it. It’s such a shame to be stuck in such a place.

Regarding my closed chain work and exposé: I’m not pretending to be smart. The truths I’ve uncovered are not my creations. It’s simply that I no longer blindly accept the traditionally accepted “truths”. University professors typically just pass on what they’ve learned without questioning it. “Good students” typically make good grades by diligently learning currently accepted truths, which are often nothing more than previously accepted truths. So many of these are flawed from inception, then the originally accepted definitions and beliefs are passed on for so long that become untouchable and no one goes back far enough to see the obvious. How could everyone … all the “experts” …be entirely wrong? One guy was wrong. Everyone else quoted without questioning. How many more subjects are exactly the same? How many “facts” are really just blindly adopted beliefs? Even worse, why do people so vehemently defend misconceptions and myths once identified and the corrections irrefutably supported?

Doing math doesn’t qualify you to be an accountant, statistician, or a professor of mathematics… nor does it mean you even get the correct answers. Likewise, exercising doesn’t mean you are qualified to determine what and how anyone else should do perform or even attempt an exercise. It doesn’t mean you do it correctly, safely, or even know anything about the internal details any specific exercise. Trophies or abs aren’t evidence of an in-depth understanding either. Your exceptional responses and tolerances to what you do don’t reflect a knowledge or understanding of the lack of tolerance or inabilities of others. Consider that virtually never is a Michael Jordan become a John Wooden or vice versa, nor a Muhammad Ali become an Angelo Dundee.

If you’re asking for numbers (frequency, sets, reps, etc.) you don’t understand the principles that they are supposed to represent. The textbooks and “research” are generalizations that do not consider beginners, progression, degree of effort per final rep, learning the skill of the exercise, etc. People ask “can you work ‘core’ every day?” They obviously don’t understand that frequency is directly related to effort, volume, recuperation, etc. It is not related to specific days or even that a week happens to have seven days.

The list of requirements for truth… whether it be finding truth, speaking truth, acknowledging truth, accepting truth, etc., …do not include having to LIKE that which is true!

You can’t legitimately dismiss something until you know virtually everything about it! In this context I am referring specifically to an exercise, a machine, a methodology, or assumed responses to any of these. Typically we dismiss something because our ego demands it when we don’t understand, are intimidated, or because we are blindly following the beliefs, mantras, misconceptions and/or sound bites spouted by others whom we chosen as our “team”. The vast majority of self-proclaimed exercise experts don’t know enough about their area of supposed expertise to adequately support or dismiss anything! 

I catch myself using “film” as a verb, and saying “footage” (which would represent a section or amount of film used). Things haven’t been shot on film in two decades. When I started hosting infomercials in ‘95 they would shoot on film to create a higher level of visual quality. But they couldn’t play back the scene for me to review, alter, or learn from because they were on film, which of course couldn’t be viewed until later after it had been developed. Eventually they brought in a VHS camera that sat on the side so I could immediately review each take and make informed alterations in my delivery. Of course a few years into it I not only improved but also became more comfortable with my ability to provide what was expected and didn’t require the same frequency of review, but ironically by then it was all digital… GB’s instead of footage. It’s crazy to recall that we had to consider the length of a scene and how much film was left in the magazine. A lot changed over those 14 years.

Everybody says they use “great form”. They are either completely blind or have incredibly low standards!