Trap of high maintenance performance

[erikfromholland (Erik de Jong)]

When Eddie Hall broke the world record in the deadlift by lifting a 500 kg barbell of the floor, he weighed close to 200 kg. In order to get to and maintain that size he had to eat 12.500 calories a day. That is about 5 times what a normal person eats. He has said in interviews on multiple occasions, that by being this big he is putting his life at risk. So not surprisingly he has let his bodyweight drop significantly after this record (and winning the strongest man in the world title) and has given up on some of his 500 kg deadlift strength (he is still super human strong)

OK, now let’s talk about memory training

There have been multiple memory champions in the past, that have taken a simular route to succes as Eddie. I’m not talking about their calorie intake (or bodyweight), but a different type of extreme investment in the form of training in the neighbourhood of 6 hours a day for many months. Typically when a big memory competition succes has been achieved, the motivation to train so much vanishes somewhat as does the ability that has been the result of this extreme training protocol.

Sounds logical, no mystery, or…

The mystery as I see it is basically this: why is it that someone who reduces his training from 6 hours a day to let say 1 hour (or 30 minutes for that matter) is bound to lose some of the built ability, when a super memory champion like Alex Mullen only trains that much to begin with?

Framing the mystery in a different way

Why does an ability that is the result of training 6 hours a day (for many months) evidently require a simular amount of training for it’s maintenance?

There are a couple of possible answers that I view as the not so interesting easy answers:

• Alex Mullen has more talent, than any of the 6 hours a day needing memory champions;
• The 6 hours a day champions have a system that is inferior, so they need 5 hours a day just to compensate for that inferiority.

Now let’s get to the interesting and not so easy explanation

When the former american football player Bob Sapp come on to the kickboxing scene some 20 years ago he weighed about 170 kg and most of it was muscle. His super human strength and body size allowed him to beat some of the best kickboxers on the planet with a style that would not work for any other kickboxer; he simply threw his opponents against the ropes and he would unleash his power on them not even trying to avoid hitting the gloves of his opponent (there was almost no defence possible against so much mass and power). Just like Eddie Hall he was not able to maintain his size for long and as a result he started losing more and more fights despite still being much bigger than most of his opponents.

The Bop Sapp anekdote is a story of a tragic feedback mechanism; taking advantage of a special ability (super human strength in the case of Bop Sapp) may result in a dependancy on that same ability. Bop Sapp adopted the pushing and punching fighting style, because it worked (feedback), but that same fighting style didn’t work at all when his strength became more normal.

Question: how does a silverback gorilla pick up a human being?
Answer: any way he damn well pleases.

The point I’m trying to make is this. The 6 hours a day training will likely result in some type of advantage and that advantage will likely result in a feedback mechanism, that ultimately results in a dependancy on that advantage and therefore on that amount of training.

I t seems to me that there is reason to be somewhat conservative with the amount of daily training you are planning to do, to avoid this “trap of high maintenance performance”.

Just to be clear: all of the above is nothing more than an educated guess of mine.

As always; any input (positive or negative) will be greatly appreciated by me.

Happy new year.

[albinoblanke (Johnny)]

It’s a risk and reward system when it comes to training an ability. Training less means a lower chance of hitting your peak performance. Training more creates a higher chance of hitting your peak performance but it can come with risks. The trick though is to find that sweetspot of training where you come as close as you can to your peak performance while not overtraining.

Perhaps Alex Mullen would perform worse if he trained 6 hours a day and therefore trains only 1 hour a day.

Eddie Hall took the riskfull route. Instead of finding his sweetspot in training, he just went and trained as hard as he could in order to hit his peak performance. Brian Shaw, another strongman, trained much safer when he was in his prime than Eddie Hall during his prime. The effects of their training shows in competition because Brian Shaw has won world strongest man 4 times while Eddie won it only 1 time but Eddie Hall’s static strength was much higher than Brian’s static strength, that is why Eddie was able to achieve the 500 kg deadlift. It was said that Eddie Hall would’ve won the next year’s strongman championship as well if he continued during his prime.

Eddie Hall trained very hard with a lot of risk and hit his peak for a short time while Brian Shaw trained much safer but never actually reached his peak. Brian trained to perform well, Eddie trained to perform the best. Eddie Hall said it himself that Brian Shaw could’ve done a 500kg deadlift but he would need to push himself much harder, physically and mentally but this comes with a lot of risks.

Of course talent also plays a role. Some people don’t need to train as much to achieve high level of ability and some do. In the end it is all up to yourself and what fits you.

[erikfromholland (Erik de Jong)]

@albinoblanke

Training less means a lower chance of hitting your peak performance. Training more creates a higher chance of hitting your peak performance but it can come with risks. The trick though is to find that sweetspot of training where you come as close as you can to your peak performance while not overtraining.

Your statement doesn’t seem to be about memory sports specifically, but more about performance in general. Well, I think the statement isn’t necessarily true; in the sport of powerlifting for example the goat Ed Coan trained each of the 3 lifts just once a week with only 1 or 2 working sets.

Perhaps Alex Mullen would perform worse if he trained 6 hours a day and therefore trains only 1 hour a day.

As I understand it, Alex has been performing at the highest level while also studying medicine. I don’t think he could even afford to spent 6 hours a day on memory training.

Eddie Hall took the riskfull route. Instead of finding his sweetspot in training, he just went and trained as hard as he could in order to hit his peak performance.

It is not clear to me what you mean, some posible ways to read this are:

• he trained harder than necessary; he could have achieved the same with less;
• he trained as hard as necessary, but he did not find the sweeetpot; sweetpot meaning (in a possible definition) an optimum of result and risk (Sweetpot score =Result -Risk; given a certain exchange rate between result and risk).

Brian Shaw, another strongman, trained much safer when he was in his prime than Eddie Hall during his prime. The effects of their training shows in competition because Brian Shaw has won world strongest man 4 times

I have been training more safe than both these 2 gentleman and I havn’t even won this contest a single time (the horror). But on a more serious note: it is somewhat dangerous to jump to conclusions based on on who has won more.

It was said that Eddie Hall would’ve won the next year’s strongman championship as well if he continued during his prime.

One of the difficulties of winning the worlds strongest man contest multiple times (a row) is the variation in the events. In the last contest the events were very technical and speed and endurance based, so someone like Eddie who, as you mentioned, has top static strength might not do well in such a contest.

Looking at your reply as a whole, I get the feeling, that my primary point that I was trying to make in my post (the risk of becoming dependant on the advantage that you get from training 6 hours a day and therefore becoming dependant on that amount of training) has not fully hit home., since you have not said anything specifically about this.

In a effort to make my point even more clear I would like to give another example from my work experience.

warehouse example of dependancy on advantage

There was once a somewhat difficult job in the warehouse requiring memorisation of lots of rules and exeptions to those rules. For many years this job was done by a team of 3 persons. Let me get to the point quickly; a smart guy was able to do the job by himself, so he replaced the 3 persons. When he got sick, the ships hit the fan so to speak; there wasn’t anyone left who knew how to do this job.