IN CONTEXT

It seems like such a pivot for me to want to discuss context and nuance when SO much of my writing is about how the details don’t matter and how it’s just the big picture stuff that we need to focus on (to include one of my most recent writings), but herein is a shinning example of all that “duality” stuff I talk about, and hey: chaos is the plan.  This is honestly one of the fundamental issues when it comes to discussions of physical transformation: EVERYTHING is spoken in the context of SOMETHING, and without understanding that context, we cannot correctly apply the information that is being offered.  The further bit of comedy is this: the more experience you have, the more you understand the context to the point that you can correctly apply it in the absence of it being stated and, in turn, the less prone you are TO stating what the context is.  Contrast this with the junior trainee: they’re such the “babe in the woods” that they take everything at face value simply because they haven’t been exposed to ENOUGH different contexts to know when information does or does not apply.   Already this has become dizzying, so perhaps I can provide some examples.

Some of ya'll never pick up the clues here...

 

I recently wrote about Jim Wendler, and people being upset with how often he releases new material, but Jim is ultimately a slave TO context in that regard.  When Jim first released 5/3/1, he designed a program for HIMSELF: a former D-1 football player turned powerlifter with a 1000lb squat who weighed over 300lbs and wanted to become athletic again.  And when Jim tested the program, WHO was he surrounded by?  CHAMPION powerlifters and high level athletes, many who had been training for decades and reached the top of their respective sports.  I’m not even touching the topic of PED use here, because you can run a pharmacy full of PEDs and still not get the sheer physical benefits and qualities that come from a LIFE under the bar and on the field: that’s simply a different BREED of human compared to…who Jim works with NOW. 

 

NOW Jim works with high school athletes, and consider the context of high school athletes NOW vs when Jim grew up.  In an era before the internet (which I know many of my readers can’t even FATHOM), kids spent MUCH more time being active, simply because there wasn’t anything ELSE to do.  I’ve brought it up several times, but I grew up as a “90s fat kid”, which, already, is another example of “context”, because when I say “fat kid” today, you think 300lbs at age 11, and, in turn, I looked like how most kids just plain look today when I was “the fat kid”, but just picture the majority of the kids in the movie “heavyweights” for…context.  And all this aside was to point out that, even AS the fat kid, I was enrolled in t-ball, soccer, ice hockey, swimming, Tae Kwon Do, football and wrestling, and in my downtime my friends and I rode bikes, rollerbladed, ran around playing war, would go on walks to the store to buy comic books/trading cards, played lazer tag/paintball, etc etc.  When I started lifting weights at age 14, I had SOME sort of athletic base to build upon.  Today, you can legit have a kid that has NEVER played a sport of any variety grow up to the reach the age of 18.  They’ll have spent their entire childhood in front of a screen eating processed junk.  Many of you simply cannot FATHOM the state of physical neglect one achieves through that sort of existence…but for Jim Wendler, THIS is the stock he has to train.

Yes, THESE were fat kids in the 90s

 

Those are two WILDLY different contexts for training populations…which is WHY Jim is constantly producing more material: the context changes.  5/3/1 worked in 2009: for the context it was written under.  If it didn’t work FOR YOU, it’s most likely because you did not fit that context: you needed Jim’s later work, which ALSO works.  All these things WORK: they just work WITHIN a context.  If we try to apply them outside of that context, it’s not a fault of the program: it’s the fault of our application. It’s like attempting to treat a fleshwound with sunblock: it’s not a failure on the part of the sunblock, it simply isn’t the right tool for THIS job.

 

The same holds true in the world of nutrition.  I absolutely LOVE the books “Super Squats” and “The Complete Keys to Progress”, and both of these books feature EXTENSIVE nutritional advice regarding how to add slabs of muscle onto your frame, which include drinking a gallon of milk a day AND partaking in the “get big drink”, which is comprised of “a full day’s worth of Bob Hoffman’s hi-proteen powder, 2 quarts of whole milk, 2 cups of dry skim milk, 2 raw eggs, 4 tablespoons of peanut butter, half a brick of chocolate ice cream, 1 small banana, 4 tablespoons of malted milk powder, and 6 tablespoons of corn syrup”.  And right away, those that are reading this TODAY think this is absolutely bonkers…but again: context.  When J.C. Hise was pioneering high rep breathing squats paired with copious volumes of milk and food, it was the 1930s, in America.  The Great Depression was transpiring, and there was no obesity epidemic.  We had the opposite issue: American males were TOO SKINNY.  When World War II rolled around, several men were denied entrance into the service because they could not meet the MINIMUM weight requirements, contrast with today, where most American males are too FAT to serve.  This was a result of the VERY strenuous lifestyle that many engaged in as Americans paired with a lack of access to adequate nutrition.  In THAT context, a gallon of milk a day along with a LOT of food was a genius move: milk was delivered to us by the milkman and was sure to grow a big strong man just like it grew a big strong bull.  And, in THAT regard, if you look at J.C. Hise, he certainly doesn’t look like what most modern-day gymbros would wish to emulate, but in the 1930s?  He was a goddamn Hercules! 

In the land of 98lb weaklings, the man with a 36" waist is a god

 

And, of course, the milk ITSELF back then was different as well.  It was RAW milk, straight from the dairy, often with the cream on top.  Herein, again, we observe the differing context of the advice.  Is this to say that a gallon of modern day milk WON’T result in weight gain?  No: it certainly will…it’s simply a question of if you, the modern day trainee, need to undertake that approach.  The same with the “Get Big Drink”: in an era where it seems that EVERYTHING has somehow managed to get high fructose corn syrup snuck into it, do you really need to add 6 tablespoons of corn syrup to anything you are ingesting?  Hell, do you even NEED a get big drink?  But did it work in the context it was written in?  Absolutely!

 

Which is the crux of all of this: whenever we read or hear anything in the realm of physical transformation, we must seek to UNDERSTAND the context that this statement is expressed in.  People want to ask questions in a vacuum because that’s easier to ask, but it’s HARDER to answer, and, in turn, the answer you get will be not applicable, because it will most likely exist outside of your context.  “Are squats a good exercise?”  Good for what purpose?  What kind of squats?  Hell, what does “good” mean here?  As in “won’t cause me injury” or as in “will get me jacked?”  “What’s the best assistance exercise?”  What are we trying to assist!?  “Can you gain muscle on keto?”  Are you a 300lb strongman athlete, or a 120lb high school wrestler?  Because we KEEP running into the theme that EVERYTHING works: it’s WHY there is so much material out there in the sphere of physical transformation.  It’s how Mark Rippetoe can have such a following despite never going above 5 reps: there’s a CONTEXT where that approach applies, and when those within that context apply that approach, they succeed.  The same is true of conjugate, sheiko, HIT, etc.  The same is true of keto, vegan, skiploading, Velocity Diet, etc.  It’s on US to think, analyze and understand when the context does and does not apply, and to understand that nothing applies universally all of the time…except that very statement.