Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Part 2: "If you can't do it slow, you can't do it fast."

As expected this particular post created some immediate responses from people who disagree. And some of them were quite predictable. Such as:
  1. Well not for me or not in my art.
  2. Not in this entirely different scenario or type of training.
  3. Not when it's used for this unrelated purposes.
The reason I'm putting these objections in generic is to show how this post can be generalized. These types of responses should be called out for what they are whenever they show up.

 (Image included again for my own amusement)

Well it worked for me - Nope

We've seen this before. In this particular type of situation we have the common error of attributing a satisfactory level of success to a training method that may not have anything to do with it.

  1. That a given level of success is reached does not prove that this method produced the highest level of success attainable.
  2. That a given amount of time was necessary does not prove that this method was the most time efficient method of achieving that.
  3. That a given result occurred when multiple methods were employed does not prove that all methods were necessary for that result.
  4. That a given volume of a method was employed does not prove that this was the optimal quantity of that training mode.
The last element is important because I acknowledge the value of slow training when utilized an appropriate amount.

What the person is actually saying when they say, "it worked for me" is that it produced a result they are satisfied with, in a time frame they are satisfied with, and as part of the set of things they did. They can't actually, logically at least, assert that it was the optimal method because no controlled experiment was performed.

And the controlled experiments clearly contradict this assertion.

Well it works in my art

This is an alternate version of the same excuse. The reply I got was that it works for "internal" martial arts. But unless "internal" means you just imagine the fight, then this it's just not true. To block, dodge and hit against, a resisting opponent you have to move fast. To move fast you have to train fast and you have to keep your slow training to an appropriately small amount.

The general logical fallacy term for this argument is Special Pleading.

Not in this different thing

Another reply I got was about situation awareness training. Well, that's not motor programming, so it was neither the original topic nor what I was talking about. Irrelevant.

There was also the reply about how it's good for balance. But that's not the same thing either but in a different way. Being balanced while moving slowly is not the same as maintaining balance while moving fast. It requires more power to stay balance at speed and this requires fast muscle movements as well. It requires fast reaction times and those are not trained at slow speeds either.

Not when it's used for this unrelated purpose

Yet another was that slow training is good for stretching. So what if slow actions are good for stretching? That's not relevant to martial arts application. That's not what we are talking about.

They are plenty of ways of stretching a muscle or joint besides using a specific technique from your art. And I don't want to interfere with the technique training by using it for this unrelated purpose.

Additionally, while I'm all for dynamic stretching this does not increase range of motion (the suggested benefit) and slow actions are not good dynamic stretching because it won't warm you up.

Not even slow training

One response was about how holding stances for a long time was good for conditioning. That's not even slow training. You've wandered off topic to grasp at straws to prove me wrong. Nope.


Turns out you weren't going to contradict my professional education and depth of knowledge regarding the decades of research with a quick sentence. Nope.


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.