6 ms·

If this guy would just open source his diet and routine that would be great. I wanna see how hard it is to copy his habits

wdewind 11y ago
One of the interesting things about high level athletes is that their routines are often terrible and they are succeeding in spite of not because of them. People with even an intermediate understanding of weightlifting and program design can easily point out massive flaws in many top NCAA and professional training routines. The philosophy tends to be when you are working with monsters it's better not to break them than it is to train hard and risk injury (which I think is idiotic and ultimately leads to far more injuries, but who am I to say). So looking at this guy's routine probably wouldn't help you anyway. As for diet, the vast majority of a professional athlete's diet comes down to getting enough protein and carbs, with minor tweaks for individuals around things like meal timing, micronutrient content and fiber content. A great place to start for a 200lbs male is 220g protein/250g carbs/50g fat/30g fiber. Sorry I know that's a disappointing answer, but I can tell you the real answer isn't that much more interesting. Elite level athletes certainly work incredibly hard, but great genes are still a prerequisite.
- onan_barbarian 11y ago
  People with a "intermediate understanding of weightlifting and program design" have a long history of not having the faintest clue what they are talking about. Given how frequently fashions have shifted over the past 20-30 years, the armchair experts can't have all been right about whose routines are "terrible" and contain "massive flaws". Plyos or no plyos? O-lifts? HIT? Bodybuilding? Draw-ins, bracing, stabilization or old fashioned situps? Linear or non-linear periodization? 4-times a day training or "lots of rest"? It's almost like there might be multiple ways of doing this stuff and that a lot of it doesn't matter nearly as much as people think, especially in a population that has to play a ton of their actual sport. A lot of this IMO stems from confusing two populations, to wit: "elite athletes who are already beastly strong and conditioned, and training skills on a near full-time basis" and "the pool of perennial beginners/intermediates who make up the vast majority of sport science study populations, internet fora and personal training $$$".
  - wdewind 11y ago
    I think I mostly agree with your sentiments about armchair experts, but I think you're giving the professional sports industry way too much credit. There are things reasonable people disagree about when it comes to training (you did a good job listing them), but there are also a lot of things that are pretty uncontroversially stupid happening (texans banning all squats from the weight room, for instance). > It's almost like there might be multiple ways of doing this stuff and that a lot of it doesn't matter nearly as much as people think, especially in a population that has to play a ton of their actual sport. This is certainly true especially in skill sports like basketball and even to an extent like football. In strength sports like weightlifting and powerlifting you don't actually see a ton of variation in program design. > A lot of this IMO stems from confusing two populations, to wit: "elite athletes who are already beastly strong and conditioned, and training skills on a near full-time basis" and "the pool of perennial beginners/intermediates who make up the vast majority of sport science study populations, internet fora and personal training $$$". I think there's a lot of truth in that, but I still hold to my point that a lot of pro athletes are doing demonstrably suboptimal programming and winning in spite of not because of their programming.
    - nether 11y ago
      This sounds like someone who's just read Ben Graham telling DE Shaw that they're doing it all wrong, and index funds are the way to go. A massive lack of understanding and experience in what professionals with cutting edge research and resources are actually doing.
      - wdewind 11y ago
        I'd be into to hearing of some professional athletes/teams you think are doing a really good job with strength and conditioning.
    - jdhawk 11y ago
      > texans banning all squats from the weight room, for instance Hu? I know Dan Riley does not like squats, but he uses several different alternatives and still says that they can be effective if you're built properly for them.
- throwaway_exer 11y ago
  Very true. Usain Bolt is known to have laughable form, so bad that coaches who have filmed him just throw up their hands when playing it back. Also, you can get incredibly strong just on 3 squares and water and sleep. Either you have the genes and do the work, or you don't.
  - dualogy 11y ago
    Absolutely true. Gym rats and Joes have been ridiculously complicating their diets over the decades to squeeze out an at-best theoretical 1% boost or something. Also being 15 helps with a natural abundance of virtually-side-effect-free ridiculous testosterone and growth hormone leveles. But hard work paired with good genes still trumps all other considerations by a wide margin.
    - IkmoIkmo 11y ago
      Hormone levels don't explain a 15 year old's performance against other 15 year old's (Cummings is the nr 1 ranked 15 year old in the world in his division), nor does it explain a better performance than 18 year olds who have higher testosterone levels. Anyway I think the original point wasn't so much the people who obsess over diet that he's perhaps referring to. Rather the fact I can name you a dozen top athletes from the top of my head who pretty much lived on McDonalds, drank 2 litres of soda a day or ate multiple candy packs a day. Changing something ridiculous like that to merely a sensible, normal diet, can actually help, and it's different from obsessing about replacing legumes in your diet with quinoa which probably isn't going to give you any gains whatsoever.
- IkmoIkmo 11y ago
  From experience in the sports I'm knowledgeable about, I feel this holds true beyond lifting.

wdewind 11y ago

One of the interesting things about high level athletes is that their routines are often terrible and they are succeeding in spite of not because of them. People with even an intermediate understanding of weightlifting and program design can easily point out massive flaws in many top NCAA and professional training routines. The philosophy tends to be when you are working with monsters it's better not to break them than it is to train hard and risk injury (which I think is idiotic and ultimately leads to far more injuries, but who am I to say). So looking at this guy's routine probably wouldn't help you anyway. As for diet, the vast majority of a professional athlete's diet comes down to getting enough protein and carbs, with minor tweaks for individuals around things like meal timing, micronutrient content and fiber content. A great place to start for a 200lbs male is 220g protein/250g carbs/50g fat/30g fiber. Sorry I know that's a disappointing answer, but I can tell you the real answer isn't that much more interesting. Elite level athletes certainly work incredibly hard, but great genes are still a prerequisite.

onan_barbarian 11y ago
People with a "intermediate understanding of weightlifting and program design" have a long history of not having the faintest clue what they are talking about. Given how frequently fashions have shifted over the past 20-30 years, the armchair experts can't have all been right about whose routines are "terrible" and contain "massive flaws". Plyos or no plyos? O-lifts? HIT? Bodybuilding? Draw-ins, bracing, stabilization or old fashioned situps? Linear or non-linear periodization? 4-times a day training or "lots of rest"? It's almost like there might be multiple ways of doing this stuff and that a lot of it doesn't matter nearly as much as people think, especially in a population that has to play a ton of their actual sport. A lot of this IMO stems from confusing two populations, to wit: "elite athletes who are already beastly strong and conditioned, and training skills on a near full-time basis" and "the pool of perennial beginners/intermediates who make up the vast majority of sport science study populations, internet fora and personal training $$$".
- wdewind 11y ago
  I think I mostly agree with your sentiments about armchair experts, but I think you're giving the professional sports industry way too much credit. There are things reasonable people disagree about when it comes to training (you did a good job listing them), but there are also a lot of things that are pretty uncontroversially stupid happening (texans banning all squats from the weight room, for instance). > It's almost like there might be multiple ways of doing this stuff and that a lot of it doesn't matter nearly as much as people think, especially in a population that has to play a ton of their actual sport. This is certainly true especially in skill sports like basketball and even to an extent like football. In strength sports like weightlifting and powerlifting you don't actually see a ton of variation in program design. > A lot of this IMO stems from confusing two populations, to wit: "elite athletes who are already beastly strong and conditioned, and training skills on a near full-time basis" and "the pool of perennial beginners/intermediates who make up the vast majority of sport science study populations, internet fora and personal training $$$". I think there's a lot of truth in that, but I still hold to my point that a lot of pro athletes are doing demonstrably suboptimal programming and winning in spite of not because of their programming.
  - nether 11y ago
    This sounds like someone who's just read Ben Graham telling DE Shaw that they're doing it all wrong, and index funds are the way to go. A massive lack of understanding and experience in what professionals with cutting edge research and resources are actually doing.
    - wdewind 11y ago
      I'd be into to hearing of some professional athletes/teams you think are doing a really good job with strength and conditioning.
  - jdhawk 11y ago
    > texans banning all squats from the weight room, for instance Hu? I know Dan Riley does not like squats, but he uses several different alternatives and still says that they can be effective if you're built properly for them.
throwaway_exer 11y ago
Very true. Usain Bolt is known to have laughable form, so bad that coaches who have filmed him just throw up their hands when playing it back. Also, you can get incredibly strong just on 3 squares and water and sleep. Either you have the genes and do the work, or you don't.
- dualogy 11y ago
  Absolutely true. Gym rats and Joes have been ridiculously complicating their diets over the decades to squeeze out an at-best theoretical 1% boost or something. Also being 15 helps with a natural abundance of virtually-side-effect-free ridiculous testosterone and growth hormone leveles. But hard work paired with good genes still trumps all other considerations by a wide margin.
  - IkmoIkmo 11y ago
    Hormone levels don't explain a 15 year old's performance against other 15 year old's (Cummings is the nr 1 ranked 15 year old in the world in his division), nor does it explain a better performance than 18 year olds who have higher testosterone levels. Anyway I think the original point wasn't so much the people who obsess over diet that he's perhaps referring to. Rather the fact I can name you a dozen top athletes from the top of my head who pretty much lived on McDonalds, drank 2 litres of soda a day or ate multiple candy packs a day. Changing something ridiculous like that to merely a sensible, normal diet, can actually help, and it's different from obsessing about replacing legumes in your diet with quinoa which probably isn't going to give you any gains whatsoever.
IkmoIkmo 11y ago
From experience in the sports I'm knowledgeable about, I feel this holds true beyond lifting.