I was at a workshop in which the speaker discussed the principles of moving well in training to improve results and reduce injury risk. One of the movements demonstrated was push ups. They seem simple enough, but how you do them affects the health of your shoulders more than you might expect. Also, doing them properly prepares you for more challenging gymnastic movements like ring muscle ups and handstand push ups.
During the Q&A, someone asked for a protocol on training pushups with this new technique.
Speaker: It is hard to say, you need to go back to first principles.
Another attendee: Do a max set, then start at sets of 50% of that.
Speaker: That might work.
I found the speaker’s responses confusing. How is it that the speaker can suggest someone else’s suggested protocol might be ok, but cannot help someone develop a protocol? If you understand the principles behind training well, you can explain simply how they can be applied.
Maybe there were other reasons why the speaker chose not to give a protocol or suggestions how to develop one, but it seems like a missed opportunity. Perhaps he could have analyzed the suggested protocol against the principles. Instead, you now have people leaving a workshop unsure how to start. How many people will end up not starting at all?
If you cannot help people learn to apply the concepts you teach, what value is your expertise?
That makes sense. The skilled Masters need to pass these principles down to the next generation . How else can the new instructors acquire such knowledge .
It should be required of all Masters to pass on their knowledge before they retire .