"How do you know Michael Phelps's training routine isn't right for you if you don't spend 6 months following it?"

If your argument starts with "how do you know you're not the best in the world unless you try" you fucked up.

Following an Olympic champion's training routine is not a bad idea if you don't expect it to make you an Olympic champion! It might be a great improvement on your current training routine though, if you're interested in the sport at all.

The physical (and genetic) demands of athletics aside, we were talking about writing. Just starting on a lark is what worked for Haruki Murakami. Again, it's very unlikely you'll be the next Murakami. But at least you'll improve a lot at something you find interesting! What is the downside here, exactly? Unless you're an opportunity-cost-minimising, industrial-output-maximising kind of person. That's fine, but that's not everyone.

The routines Olympic champions follow are typically terrible for beginners. Michael Phelps's routine would destroy most swimmers, he has a ton of recovery assistance, he's got the bio mechanics 100% down so he doesn't accrue as much RSI, and he's just genetically gifted with a tolerance for a lot of exercise.

The same pattern holds at the elite levels of most things.

> The same pattern holds at the elite levels of most things.

How does it hold for writing?

Stephen King and Dean Koontz have been getting feedback from people and the market so long that their instincts are razor sharp and they have internalized a structure of stories and what will/wont move readers that they naturally lean on without having to puzzle things out the way a less accomplished writer would.

If you don't have that wisdom, trying to pants something is going to result in writing yourself in circles, contradictions, inconsistencies, incoherence of idea, etc.

I suppose the billionaire-assigned AI will let you know if you have the gift of King and Koontz or not.