Contrary to the beliefs of the weekend warriors and the "how much ya bench?" crowd, true strength training is not just a hobby; it's a way of life. It is a lifelong (or at least reasonable so) commitment to get stronger, which gives ample time for the trainer to look into different routines and different methods. We all should know that some methods most effectively afford strength to some groups of trainers but not to others, and that some methods won't best afford strength to any group. This leads to the question of how experience plays a role in the credibility of method/technique criticism. I approach this point from two different angles of the same question: is experience needed before criticism can become valid?

First the is the obvious, easy-to-agree-with principle: unless you've been in a housefire, you can't really say how hot the flames are. That is, if you haven't tried a certain training method, you can't say it doesn't work. To an extent, this is absolutely true. For instance, unless you have consistently done high-rep sets, it's hard to find validity in your statement, "high reps don't work." If you haven't consistently trained with Olympic lifts, you can't say that training that way is dangerous or that it doesn't work.

A lot of people want to take the premature negative approach to methods because of lack of success with them or injuries sustained through them. Consistency is the key. Success is judged over a considerable period of time, not within a short time span in which the trainer jumps into the routine to find out if it works. Also, injuries are linked to this because the trainer will not take the time to start out with lighter poundages to get the technique correct and to get the right feel for the lift. You have to understand that if you are going to consistently train with a particular method, you have to take the time to do it right and to actually do it consistently.

Likewise, you can't train for a year with something like singles and claim that they are the end-all, be-all of training. You can't take six months off from training, then utilize a certain method when you resume training and judge the effectiveness of that method by your progress in the months or year following from when you began training again. Even if you have tremendous results from a certain method in a short time span, it should be understood that the short time span is exactly why that kind of evaluation has no merit. Again, consistency is the key. Now all of this is not an attempt to complicate things with notions of "how long is long enough to be consistent?" But training is a lifelong commitment, so you figure it out; are you only going to be training for a few years and then stop? If so, call yourself a bunny and hop on over to the local primp and pump machines at the local chrome and fern gym. If not, use consistency as your key.

Then, there is the opposite approach to the first principle: you don't have to walk into a housefire to know how hot it will be. Of course, this is saying that there are some aspects of training about which you can use your own judgement and decide whether or not they are useful or useless. For instance, when I was in my first decade of training, I didn't need to train for hours at a time doing tons of different lifts and sets per session to know that it wasn't effective for strength training. I don't need to go lift on a "properly cammed machine" with slow, timed reps to tell me that if done on an even halfway consistent basis it won't work. Common sense and good judgement go a long way.

The line between these two points are very hazy to some. I'll hear, "how can you say such and such doesn't work when you haven't tried it?" In theory, that makes sense; but it all depends on what you are talking about. Yet again, consistency is the key. Look at the upholders of methods and view their training history. How long have they trained with those methods and what kind of results did those methods yield? Compare that to the consistently used methods of others and to your own consistently used methods. Most of the time, you'll find it easy to use this to weed out the useless from the useful.

So should you practice something before you preach for it or condemn it? It really all depends. But above all, remember in looking at methods and in practicing methods that ultimately consistency is the key.

Just some useless thoughts from a narrow-minded old man!