You just earned a new subscriber just because of the Jaylib shirt alone. R.I.P J-Dilla. But I do like the fact you talking about functional strength and lifts.
Coach Dane, you’ve been doing so much on building “twitchy athletes,” explosive, impulse… But please tackle the genetic elephant in the room: the ACTN-3 gene (R577X) (determined very easy in genetic test like 23&Me). Some research suggests all the “training science” and practical experience on power/explosiveness protocols is based on faulty causation. In short, there are three relevant genotypes: fast twitch, middle of the road, or like myself, the genotype that produces zero “fast twitch” protein. Research suggests there’s more than just a performance correlation. If you train one genotype athlete with the wrong protocol it’s actually counterproductive to performance. I think it would be a great challenge for you and maybe Earl to put your great minds to work examining your body of experience and knowledge in light of the genetic (nature over nurture) argument. I think you have to start with the given that any athlete could train hard enough to outperform the suggested genetic potential. But is it optimal? Should coaches understand athlete genetic predisposition before embarking on a long range training plan?
Ur taking genetics and applying it OVER everything instead of taking it, like every other field, with a grain of salt and applying it WITH everything. This is not an elephant in the room. It’s actually pretty simple. My question is what are u implying here. Bcz it isn’t that hard. This isn’t a mystery or answer beyond peoples who’s job is to fixate on genes or people who don’t succeed and seek answers over their failure to some uncontrollable power such as their environment or their genetics. Nature vs nurture is no longer a debate. It’s clearly both. The problem with specialities is they tend to over emphasise their field and overlook the others (which isn’t a bad thing) a geneticist will bring u a study about genes and it’s impact on outcome. And a sociologist will study social interactions and site a heavy influence of environment with outcome (both of which is true) To which a person who hyper fixates on social dynamics (the opposite of ur position) will site as if it’s “the elephant” and that it is the core of outcome. They themselves will site how social influence hugely impacts in order of magnitudes a persons behaviour and outcome with as much passion as u site genetics as if everything must revolve around it. It is the fundamental core when really it’s an integer in a equation. Read over what u wrote and tell me what are u implying. coz it’s very obvious. SOME genetic study taken in isolation sites that Training science, literal studies of equal standings themselves, is based on faulty causation? Why does ur genetic study automatically push over training science? Why are u personally so fixated on the genetics that u would cast out other fields? Coz no appropriate scientist would laugh in the face of a sociologists study and chuck their genetic research like it overturns every stone and research ever done. So are u making excuses for urself? Are u saying the average people DOESN’T experience increases in jump or sprint speed with basic strength training. Are u saying that all of the positive results of COUNTLESS training studies which u seem to be unaware of are based on a a lucky pick of people with a rare gene. That people Bcz of genes don’t “respond” to strength training or plyometrics. Are u saying people can’t adapt? Are u hyper fixating on the elites and using that to determine ur approach to everything? What are u really trying to say here? There are three muscle fibre types. Type A, Type 2a and Type 2x. There’s arguments about more but we will leave that. But u say “like myself, zero fast twitch protein” again indicative of a lack of success and a desire to reach out to uncontrollable factors. Are u saying u experience no effect on explosiveness with training? Are u saying explosiveness , speed or strength is simply influenced by muscle fibre type (hint ur wrong). Are u saying u have no type 2 muscle fibres? Ur wrong. Are u saying u don’t have enough that will take u to elite performance? Ur wrong. Are u saying u don’t have enough to be the fastest sprinter against guys who have the genes and the work ethic and the technology? Ur right. Are we even talking about people or just u at this point. There is no research that suggests it’s more then just performance correlation. We know muscles and even fibre types can change and adapt. So what u don’t have the gene and this u can’t gain a 30 inch vertical jump? What ur saying about athletes on a wrong protocol experience detriments makes zero sense. That’s a given. It’s a well duh kinda thing. People don’t need genetics to know athletes have strengths and weaknesses. U can site how Usain Bolt has the ACTN-3 gene but u forget he’s heavier then a lot of athletes. A protocol with higher volumes would be detrimental, ur forget that he’s lanky, that’s going to effect his acceleration and speed of his foot turnover but his advantage is his top end speed over the middle of the race and the fact that he can maintain that. Did the ACTN-3 gene tell u all that? Did the studies every even factor that in? He’s a hyper responder. But chuck him in with others and he will most likely get worse if they do this scientific study and analysis. He’s going to need a different focus and a different protocol. Coaches take all of this HOLISTICALLY. U take all this in just genes. So finally. Should coaches understand genetic predispositions? It can be a tool. But I don’t need to see if they have the ACTN-3 gene to realise. Hold on. This guys foot turnover is fast, his sprint is amazing, but his force output is ass with only a 100kg squat. His bar speed is very good but gasses out quickly suggesting poor cardio to work on but also perhaps a greater percentage of fast twitch. This all impact his training variables. And it tells me that he’s genetically faster BUT it gives me an impression of him ON A SPECTRUM. The ACTN-3 gene on a sheet doesn’t tell me that. It doesn’t tell me his weaknesses or even his strengths completely. It doesn’t tell me anything to specialise with besides he can be fast. Like how fast is he? Faster then this guy. Slower then this guy? Well if I watched him I would be able to place him. But ur gene sheet just tells me he CAN be fast. So I would even say training science as a whole which has problems is even more reliable then genetics coz it’s more holistic. If u based training from the core of genetics, which u can’t fully read nor can it tell u everything such as femur length rather then specific on the ground applications of training, that would be more detrimental then training science. Where I have his performances as numbers on a sheet of paper is Directly related. Rather then just a gene that tells me nothing much more then it exists. So u are basically putting TOO much emphasis on gene expression
You just earned a new subscriber just because of the Jaylib shirt alone. R.I.P J-Dilla.
But I do like the fact you talking about functional strength and lifts.
You the man coach 👍🏻
I expected you to start beat boxing at some point and was disappointed when you didn’t
Shout out to my man for showing love to Madlib! The champion sound!
I love hearing what this guy has to say about training as an athlete. Being a rugby player I'm definitely thinking of buying his rugby program.
Tendons
Coach Dane, you’ve been doing so much on building “twitchy athletes,” explosive, impulse… But please tackle the genetic elephant in the room: the ACTN-3 gene (R577X) (determined very easy in genetic test like 23&Me). Some research suggests all the “training science” and practical experience on power/explosiveness protocols is based on faulty causation. In short, there are three relevant genotypes: fast twitch, middle of the road, or like myself, the genotype that produces zero “fast twitch” protein. Research suggests there’s more than just a performance correlation. If you train one genotype athlete with the wrong protocol it’s actually counterproductive to performance. I think it would be a great challenge for you and maybe Earl to put your great minds to work examining your body of experience and knowledge in light of the genetic (nature over nurture) argument. I think you have to start with the given that any athlete could train hard enough to outperform the suggested genetic potential. But is it optimal? Should coaches understand athlete genetic predisposition before embarking on a long range training plan?
Ur taking genetics and applying it OVER everything instead of taking it, like every other field, with a grain of salt and applying it WITH everything. This is not an elephant in the room. It’s actually pretty simple.
My question is what are u implying here. Bcz it isn’t that hard. This isn’t a mystery or answer beyond peoples who’s job is to fixate on genes or people who don’t succeed and seek answers over their failure to some uncontrollable power such as their environment or their genetics. Nature vs nurture is no longer a debate. It’s clearly both. The problem with specialities is they tend to over emphasise their field and overlook the others (which isn’t a bad thing) a geneticist will bring u a study about genes and it’s impact on outcome. And a sociologist will study social interactions and site a heavy influence of environment with outcome (both of which is true) To which a person who hyper fixates on social dynamics (the opposite of ur position) will site as if it’s “the elephant” and that it is the core of outcome. They themselves will site how social influence hugely impacts in order of magnitudes a persons behaviour and outcome with as much passion as u site genetics as if everything must revolve around it. It is the fundamental core when really it’s an integer in a equation.
Read over what u wrote and tell me what are u implying. coz it’s very obvious.
SOME genetic study taken in isolation sites that Training science, literal studies of equal standings themselves, is based on faulty causation? Why does ur genetic study automatically push over training science? Why are u personally so fixated on the genetics that u would cast out other fields? Coz no appropriate scientist would laugh in the face of a sociologists study and chuck their genetic research like it overturns every stone and research ever done. So are u making excuses for urself? Are u saying the average people DOESN’T experience increases in jump or sprint speed with basic strength training. Are u saying that all of the positive results of COUNTLESS training studies which u seem to be unaware of are based on a a lucky pick of people with a rare gene. That people Bcz of genes don’t “respond” to strength training or plyometrics. Are u saying people can’t adapt? Are u hyper fixating on the elites and using that to determine ur approach to everything? What are u really trying to say here?
There are three muscle fibre types. Type A, Type 2a and Type 2x. There’s arguments about more but we will leave that. But u say “like myself, zero fast twitch protein” again indicative of a lack of success and a desire to reach out to uncontrollable factors. Are u saying u experience no effect on explosiveness with training? Are u saying explosiveness , speed or strength is simply influenced by muscle fibre type (hint ur wrong). Are u saying u have no type 2 muscle fibres? Ur wrong. Are u saying u don’t have enough that will take u to elite performance? Ur wrong. Are u saying u don’t have enough to be the fastest sprinter against guys who have the genes and the work ethic and the technology? Ur right. Are we even talking about people or just u at this point.
There is no research that suggests it’s more then just performance correlation. We know muscles and even fibre types can change and adapt. So what u don’t have the gene and this u can’t gain a 30 inch vertical jump?
What ur saying about athletes on a wrong protocol experience detriments makes zero sense. That’s a given. It’s a well duh kinda thing. People don’t need genetics to know athletes have strengths and weaknesses. U can site how Usain Bolt has the ACTN-3 gene but u forget he’s heavier then a lot of athletes. A protocol with higher volumes would be detrimental, ur forget that he’s lanky, that’s going to effect his acceleration and speed of his foot turnover but his advantage is his top end speed over the middle of the race and the fact that he can maintain that. Did the ACTN-3 gene tell u all that? Did the studies every even factor that in? He’s a hyper responder. But chuck him in with others and he will most likely get worse if they do this scientific study and analysis. He’s going to need a different focus and a different protocol. Coaches take all of this HOLISTICALLY. U take all this in just genes.
So finally. Should coaches understand genetic predispositions? It can be a tool. But I don’t need to see if they have the ACTN-3 gene to realise. Hold on. This guys foot turnover is fast, his sprint is amazing, but his force output is ass with only a 100kg squat. His bar speed is very good but gasses out quickly suggesting poor cardio to work on but also perhaps a greater percentage of fast twitch. This all impact his training variables. And it tells me that he’s genetically faster BUT it gives me an impression of him ON A SPECTRUM. The ACTN-3 gene on a sheet doesn’t tell me that. It doesn’t tell me his weaknesses or even his strengths completely. It doesn’t tell me anything to specialise with besides he can be fast. Like how fast is he? Faster then this guy. Slower then this guy? Well if I watched him I would be able to place him. But ur gene sheet just tells me he CAN be fast. So I would even say training science as a whole which has problems is even more reliable then genetics coz it’s more holistic. If u based training from the core of genetics, which u can’t fully read nor can it tell u everything such as femur length rather then specific on the ground applications of training, that would be more detrimental then training science. Where I have his performances as numbers on a sheet of paper is Directly related. Rather then just a gene that tells me nothing much more then it exists. So u are basically putting TOO much emphasis on gene expression