Thread by @dr_jump_uk

#AnotherDynamicSystemsTheoryRant

A big problem with justifying training by appealing to DST is that no one really understands it properly (including, I would suggest, most of its proponents).

However, because proponents of DST seem so confident in their delivery, they can appear to have some advanced knowledge of training (this is why they like it).

This can be intimidating to coaches - they don't want to appear stupid by challenging something they don't properly understand.

Strength and conditioning coaches shouldn't be afraid to call out rubbish when they see it.

My take on the use of DST is that it seems to be an excuse to just focus on the kinematic similarity of resistance training exercises to sport skills.

It provides a rationale for people to discount the importance of the other ways in which exercises can be mechanically similar to skills (most often encapsulated in the criteria of dynamic correspondence).

It also seems to make people forget fundamental training principles like progressive overload.

It does allow people to invent lots of funky exercises - people like being creative.

It is essentially a more complicated version of the "specificity trap" for people who are more knowledgeable about training.

I posted this quote a couple of weeks ago:

"High-flown words do not scare the Anarchists, because they know that these words simply conceal ignorance - that is uncompleted investigation - or, what is much worse, mere superstition."

- Petr Kropotkin

I would go further. High-flown words can also be used to manipulate and deceive.

Personally, I am generally suspicious as to the motivation of those who use needlessly complicated models and terminology.