Month: June 2011

Continuing from Part 2 where I defined talent and presented what I call the Work/Talent Matrix I want to move into some seemingly unrelated issue that tie into this topic.  First let me go off on a bit of a tangent about how people seem to parse the question “Can hard work beat talent?” when it comes up.

Don’t Stop Believin’

There are certain concepts in fitness and sports that, no matter how clearly I try to explain them, someone will misinterpret it.  This is one of them.  The mere idea that there might be genetic limits to someone’s performance, that no amount of hard work might ever get them to their goal is just met with a lot of resistance.

I’m not sure it just comes down to reading comprehension, though.  Rather, I think it has to do with most people’s deep seated psychological desire for what I’m saying not to be true. … Keep Reading

In Part 1 I asked the question “Can hard work beat talent?” and took too long attempting to define what “talent” in an athletic sense might represent.    So now let me look at the other half of the issue, that of “hard work” and how to define it.  Surprisingly given how much I wrote in Part 1, I won’t have a lot to say here.

Defining Work/Hard Work: Part 1

Compared to what I wrote about talent, I don’t have that much to say here.  Hard work is, well, hard work.  In an athletic sense it would represent the often grinding, exhausting training that all ultimately successful athletes put in.  Depending on the sport this might eventually entail 20-40 hours of endurance training per week, 5+ sessions of Olympic lifting, hours in the weight room, etc.

And whether or not you buy into the idea of there being some type of innate talent, I don’t think most would deny that you still have to put in the work. … Keep Reading

Can hard work beat talent?  This is one of those questions and debates that has raged on for yers.  Usually I see it asserted that “work can beat talent” or perhaps “hard work can beat talent”.  This is meant to suggest that so long as you put in the work you can reach whatever goal you set.   That includes beating someone who might be more naturally talented than you.

The fitness industry runs on trite platitudes like this.

I’ve gotten into endless arguments over the years in various forums, etc.  When I try to point out that there are clear genetic limits, this will be met with the retort “You don’t know my work ethic.”  The implication, belief being that hard work can overcome anything.

It’s a mentality that tends to be held by those with less talent, who want to think that life works like a Rocky movie.  That heart can beat talent.… Keep Reading

So at some point in the training game someone threw out the idea that a 300 pound bench, 400 pound squat and 500 pound deadlift would get most people fairly close to their genetic maximum in terms of muscle mass.   And while I can’t say who came up with this initially, I do know that Stuart McRobert of Hardgainer magazine certainly popularized it.

But whenever these values are thrown around, a number of questions tend to come up.  The first is that in powerlifting competition, it’s not uncommon to see people squat more than they deadlift.  Or, well, it was at one point.  Which I’ll come back to.  Of course everybody knows someone at their gym who benches more than they squat or deadlift but that’s a separate issue.  There are also a couple of dumb strawman argument ideas that show up.

What’s going on?  Let’s find out.

Defining the Specifics

So the idea here is that if the general trainee is able to get their bench press to 300 lbs, their squat to 400 lbs and their deadlift to 500 lbs, that will likely take them close to or to their genetic potential for muscle mass.… Keep Reading