We live in a time where information is widely available and Dunning Kreuger is as bad as it has ever been. Books are the great equalizer for nonexperts claiming themselves as experts and experts struggling to sell themselves as experts. The simplest way to determine who is to have a nonexpert explain what they know to someone else.
I should disclaim that this book was good. It is not earth-shattering with new revelations of training. At this point in my career and my knowledge base, if I am shocked by something training-wise it is either horribly exaggerated or outright wrong. Sometimes I laugh at the timing of things and how cyclical trends are, but that is not shocking. The recurrence of a trend that peaked decades ago to resurface from some compiler of information catching wind of once popular trend that a new generation of people that are easily convinced this is novel and the next great thing is and always will be a component of fitness. This is not going to change.
The reason why I liked Muscle was because it took things that we have to accept are true such as the function of the sarcomere and attempted to explain it better. Fitness books are playing a zero-sum game by pushing novelty over understanding. I found myself reading Muscle and saying that is a really good way of explaining that. It gives the impression that the metaphors and teaching examples were vetted multiple times before it was written. There was nothing new in this book, but there were new and really good explanations of things I know.
Intelligence is a funny concept in strength and conditioning. We can artificially create intelligence by knowing something more about a particular topic than the next coach. This is not being more intelligent, it is being more specialized. We can also take on a facade of a dominant personality and ridicule someone who is more well-rounded or not as familiar with a specific nomenclature. The absence of disagreement does not mean agreement. Dominant personalities often miss that.
Muscle dove into a range of topics such as the history of anatomy, pathologies, the difference between skeletal versus smooth muscle, and relevant physiology. This could easily feel like a text if you go off that description alone. It is not, at least in my opinion. It is a resource that you can share with a client and say this is a pretty good book to further understand what is happening while we are training. It is a cliff note on how we should be thinking of explaining anatomy to our clients and what we are trying to do.
As I was reading this I was immediately thrust back to my undergraduate and graduate studies. I thought of the teachers I had, some good some bad. I had a burning sensation of what am I to those that I work with. I wonder if I am as adept at explaining things as I hoped I would be. Those feelings were fleeting because I was committing to a resource that would help me do that.
I did not start and finish this book because I did not know the difference between skeletal and smooth muscle. I read this book so I can explain it better. I have no idea where you are on your journey as a strength coach, but I can tell you this, eventually, you will be programming or coaching something and you will ask yourself what is the point? It is a fair question if you think about it. At certain points in career that answer is easy, at other points not so much. The only way we can truly understand if our profession has a meaningful impact is to not necessarily know more or be more dominant with our thoughts but to truly understand what we are choosing and how that will accomplish what we desire. The best demonstration of that is if we can explain that to anyone. Having a coach agree with you to avoid conflict is not a demonstration of understanding. Having a higher working knowledge of a particular topic is not a sign of intelligence. Being able to explain what is happening to a person who is trying to lose weight or build muscle but does not have a master’s degree in exercise science is the ultimate sign of intelligence and therefore understanding.
