A lot of industries have conflicting viewpoints.  I guess they all do.  But here in our little world of strength sports, it's very apparent.  One group says GPP is necessary, another says it's detrimental.  One group says you need periodized training consisting of lots of variety.  Another group says you only need heavy singles.  This type of issue persists not only in the major issues, but in minor ones as well.  Use of recovery methods, accommodating resistance, special exercises, etc, etc, etc.

Here's the thing -- in the case of divergent viewpoints, there can only be one right answer.  Relativism is a logical fallacy and things are either true or they aren't.  That's not to say that one extremist camp is right and the other is wrong -- the truth may be and often is found in the middle.  But if there are two divergent viewpoints on an issue and there is most certainly a point where truth can be found, how do we figure it out?

One problem that often arises when we start discussing debated issues such as those mentioned above is that people tend to pick a side and defend it at all costs.  My interest in strength is not so much about "being a part of something" in terms of which camps I belong to.  My interest in strength lies more in the realm of getting myself and those I coach to be the best they can possibly be.  So picking a side and defending is not all that productive of a tactic.  It's far better to search for the truth.

So in the midst of two debated viewpoints, both are likely to have supporting reasons, facts, and logic to back up their point of view.  For me, one question that cuts through all the fluff is this:  How do you know?

 "Ways of knowing" is a topic that seeks to explain where our knowledge comes from.  If you've never heard of this before, check out this link.  It can give you a decent primer on where knowledge originates.  But since this is all pretty ethereal conversation, let's look at an example.

Some people think that you need lots of GPP work to reach your potential.  Things like flexibility, aerobic fitness, etc are all emphasized.  The thinking is that if you do not develop all of these abilities in concert, you will never be able to reach your potential in any one ability such as strength.  Now we apply the question... How do you know?

The answer to that question will fall into one of the four categories from the above link.  It could be Sensory/Observational, Logical, Authoritative, or Intuition.  If you have a good understanding of the Ways of Knowing, you can get a good idea of the relative strength of the argument.  If you test multiple viewpoints in this way, you can get closer and closer to the truth.  Granted, this is not an easy process to go through and it's dependent on how good you are with the Ways of Knowing (identifying logical fallacies, observation bias, etc).  If you fail in your application, you'll end up further from the truth rather than closer.  But the irony is that this probably would have happened anyway.

Most people will apply Ways of Knowing without even thinking about it.  All of us know that some arguments are stronger than others.  But the deliberate application and critical analysis of Ways of Knowing can help you figure out what's true when two opposing viewpoints both seem to have valid arguments.  Even if it's just asking them -- "How do you know?"

Discuss this article!  Click here!

Reactive Training Systems always strives to provide the most advanced and effective training system on the planet as well as the equipment you need to train and compete with unrivaled success.  For the most recent news on RTS developments, sign up for our newsletter (form at the right of the page), or follow us on Facebook.  If you would like to discuss this article, please visit our Forum or Contact page.