Thread by @stevemagness

When it comes to performance, figuring out what works is difficult. What I consider:

1. Research- Empirical data
2. Theory- Do we know why/how it might work?
3. Practice- What are the best performers/coaches doing?
4. History- What can past performers/ancient wisdom teach us?

If we have all the boxes checked, I feel really good about going forward with the practice./tactic. If only 1-2, not so much.

Consider from all perspectives. It's easy to get locked in on our preferred source, then defend it to the death. But look at things from all angles.

Let me give you an example in the exercise world. A decade or so ago, there was a lot of hype around high-intensity training for endurance performance. Lots of research coming out & suggestions of low volume/high intensity.

It's easy to jump on the bandwagon. It's science!

Yet... the best athletes/coaches weren't going that way. If you looked at history, we emphasized HIIT in the 1950s, before coaches swung back to combo of high volume + strategic intense work.

So, I didn't follow the science. I stuck with what seemed to work.

A few years later, researchers like Stephen Seiler caught the science up, validating an approach with lots of easy running + strategic and mixed higher intensity work.

Point being: Figuring out what 'works' isn't simple. Have a decision making framework that helps you consider all aspects of whatever the latest fad/trend is.

It's easy to create a story with one or two of these aspects. Much harder with all four.