Edited by Marco Batistoni
The summer doors open and all the athletes, studying their reflection in the mirror, wonder if the months spent sweating hard in the gym have produced some results not only for their mental and physical health but also, given the season, for the aesthetic one.
It matters little if you are dedicated to body-building, spinning or aerobics, swimming, etc. We are at the moment of "showdown", the one in which the fruits of our labor are gathered and we realize that all the knots end up coming to a head ...
At the various fitness festivals we see that even those who propose themselves as icons of wellness do not always have that harmonious muscular development and that dry physique that one might expect ...... indeed, some of the physicists we see exhibited with so much satisfaction do not they may not leave us at least a little perplexed.
The summer season begins, but things haven't changed much since the winter season ..... and since everyone knows how seriously and consistently he trained, the way is open to criticism of the various training methods proposed by authors with credentials at national and global level.
Thus we move from the Weiderian methodologies (now considered outdated), to the short-intense-organized, to the great German volume, to the Mentzer method, to that of the interrupted Massaroni series, to the Brown method ... and I don't want to, but I it would take pages and pages to list them all. There is a vast population of enthusiasts, often gathered in provincial clubs and gyms, who take sides with one or the other methodology making a precise and conscious choice, motivated by precise studies of the science of the exercise, or sometimes not supported from something demonstrable, based simply on the fact that it seems that Mr. Rossi of Toronto has turned lead into gold.
Each therefore takes sides with one or the other part of the barricade, carrying out its own convictions.
At this point I would like to make a little reflection: from my personal point of view the methodologies all work, or rather they are all effective: what really makes the difference between a good workout, a mediocre training and an optimal training is that for each athlete there is it must be a correct measurement in terms of frequency, intensity, time and type.
The point on which we play, in my opinion, the effectiveness of training depends essentially on the intertwining of two variables: on the one hand we have the different stages of the annual macrocycle (dictated by each of the many methods I mentioned earlier), each with its particular requests to the athlete, on the other we have the specific characteristics of every athlete who at that moment will be able to face the training program in a completely different way from any other athlete or even from himself in another situation. I mean that the abilities of each of us to "spend" our physical and mental energies are absolutely variable over time and depend on a very large number of factors that are difficult to be objectified (physical and health conditions, of course, but also work situation, family, relationship, stress of various kinds etc.) which, however, strongly condition our response to that type of training in that moment .
Therefore, the method that at a given moment proves to be successful with Sofia, may not give the same results with Martina because the two types of individuals go through different moments from an emotional point of view, and this makes the former capable of supercompensating efficiently and to profit from that phase of the program, while the second one might not be able to derive any benefit from it, on the contrary, it would only end up uselessly wearing out.
Perhaps, then, it doesn't make much sense to follow the logic of everything or nothing, talking about the different training methods, perhaps it would be enough to use a little more common sense and put to good use what we have learned with our experience.
Another point to which maximum attention should be paid is then the scrupulousness with which the simple rules of practical application of training are followed: has the overload principle been applied correctly? Has the live execution time been maintained in the prescribed manner? (because repetition after repetition, when we get close to exhaustion we are all a bit of the thieves ....) Have we respected the exact break between a set and the other? And finally, between the training of a muscle group and the next one there was an exhaustive recovery, able to fully reintegrate the athlete's energies?
It seems to me that these simple rules are too often overlooked both by athletes and by trainers and trainers, who let themselves be taken by complicated methodologies that sound a bit like a cross between algebraic formulas and magic formulas, where the letters of the 'alphabet follow each other in a frenetic way: a1 + b1 + c1, to indicate the days of chest-to-drain loading back-rest buttocks but shoulder shoulders ..... Excuse me if I joke a little, but at this point I like to play a little with this idea and make it less serious!
In my opinion, in most cases we end up neglecting a mandatory parameter such as measuring the quantity, quality and density of the program, shifting attention to other factors that "promise" the quick and easy achievement of objectives: we discuss then on what is the most effective amount of branched amino acids, or the most suitable dose for creatine, or on the greater or lesser efficacy of the thermogenic advertised in the last week. Not to mention the 70% aerobic exercise compared to the anaerobic interval that promotes epoc 4 weeks from the sea!
Even on nutrition, everyone seems to have the answer to every problem in their pockets. And we discuss the Mediterranean diet, zone diet, ketogenic, metabolic ...
Also in this field I believe that there is no solution that necessarily goes well for everyone: the important thing would be to always be able to take into account the simple physiological and metabolic parameters that are the basis of the functioning of the human machine as science has done it know and how experience and seniority of training made us live and feel.
Today these parameters are too often and too quickly forgotten: we can no longer reason and listen to our feelings to give life to an optimal and satisfying training, we prefer to rely on the advice of our friend or better still that of the overseas mentor, who assures us the easy achievement of faster and higher quality objectives.
In my opinion, there is nothing more useless and dispersive.
Each of us should first rethink our training taking into account all the measurable and quantifiable parameters I mentioned above, take care to write them down on your training diary (or in your patients' files): in this way we will realize that this which sometimes seems unattainable in reality is very simple and affordable for anyone who has the perseverance and honesty to train seriously, feeding properly and taking care to allow themselves a good recovery.
What else to say?
Of course I do not intend to raise controversy or dispense advice, presenting myself as the guru on duty, with the magic recipe in my pocket. I didn't invent anything new, in fact, I've already found it all done.
I do not presume to have reached optimal training by now: I must say, however, that as far as I am concerned I continue to compare myself day by day with the search for what is optimal for me at that time. And of what I think is optimal for those to whom I prescribe certain programs, based on all the considerations of which I have spoken.
My aim is only to make you raise some doubts, to stimulate each of you (whatever the training method you have chosen) to self-analysis and careful reflection, skills that are the basis of every constructive comparison and of every discussion .
I hope I succeeded.
