The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness
Latest Article

The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness

It’s no secret that when people contradict themselves, it has the effect of making the flaws in their actions or statements seem glaringly obvious. But what about when WE ourselves get caught contradicting ourselves by someone else?

By: Nick Tumminello Added: January 6th, 2014
More Recent Articles
Contrast Training for Size
By: Lee Boyce
An Interview with Marianne Kane of Girls Gone Strong
By: Jordan Syatt
What Supplements Should I be Taking? By: Jay Wainwright
Bench Like a Girl By: Julia Ladewski
Some Thoughts on Building a Big Pull By: Christopher Mason

Facebook Join Facebook Group       Twitter Follow on Twitter       rss Subscribe via RSS
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 93
  1. #1
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    43

    Vince is here! No forum is now safe!

    Mr Canada 1970 has arrived because he had a ringing in his ear and thought someone was talking about him behind his back.

    Let me introduce myself with a story. Those who feel my words are worthless stop reading now! Caught you! Well, Ray Mentzer came to Australia many years ago and was going to start a new life in a new country with his girlfriend and daughter Dagny. He gave seminars and training camps at my gyms and we got to know each other. It happened that he moved to Sydney and stayed at my place for several months. We got to talk about Nautilus, Arthur Jones, Mike Mentzer and lots of things concerning training and the people in it. Ray was an intelligent guy but he was also very sensitive and ended up more or less on his own. He had, muscle for muscle, some of the largest muscles ever built on a human. I remember one day when he flexed his biceps and said he might try to get it to touch his wrist. It wasn't that far off, anyway. Ray was also the one of the strongest men to walk this earth and once did two squats with 925 pounds. That is superman territory.

    Well, Ray and I differed about training theory. He was a high intensity advocate and recommended brief, but intense workouts. He trained bodyparts once a week. Well, in some sense he did one direct workout and one indirect workout. If he did chest he combined it with biceps. One pressing and one pulling movement. Then several days later he did back and triceps. All thought out and it worked for him and the people he trained.

    Ray eventually moved back to America and settled in LA near Hermosa Beach where he had a clinic that utilized MedX machines to help people with back, neck and leg injuries. He had owned gyms before. Well, I am more than 10 years older than Ray and I have been around the scene longer than he had. So I didn't abandon my theories just because I disagreed with him. I had to be convinced that my theories were false.

    That is just the background to the point I want to make. Years later, in 1991, I visited Los Angeles and stayed for over a week at Ray's place. We got to go to Gold's Gym and he arranged with the manager that I could train for free. That was the sort of thing that Ray did for his mates. I met a few of the champs there and on one occasion introduced Paul Dillett to Ray. Ray wasn't impressed with Paul's vascularity and thought it ugly. Anyway, later Ray said to someone that I knew more people at Gold's than he did and he had been there for 10 years! Well, on one of my training sessions using those Hammer machines Ray came over and corrected my form! It was at that moment that I realised that no matter how long we have been training we still have things to learn and maybe we all have been doing some things wrong from the beginning. It made me wonder about training theories and perhaps many of us cling to false theories. False in the sense that they do not explain all growth and most can't explain the lack of growth from people using those methods

    I find it very unprofitable debating training theories with people who are not my peers. Bryan doesn't debate me on HST and he has no reason to do so except to refine his theories. He is, afterall, promoting a product and he would be foolish to stop believers from attacking dissenting opinions. A good scientist would debate dissenting opinions. There is a difference between doing science and applying it. Bryan is applying the work of others to hypertrophy. From my reading of the same literature as he has quoted I find it remarkable that he is confident about his method. Much of what he advocates goes totally against what we find advanced bodybuilders doing to grow. However, HST does embrace ideas about hypertrophy that might revolutionise the sport. Science seems to have plenty to contribute regarding frequency, loads, variety and so on. It will be interesting to watch what happens. In the past HIT was heralded as the wonder system but that method has not been used by many bodybuilders. The concept of intensity and thresholds certainly has and so has the use of negatives in workouts.

    For all of those scientific studies most bodybuilders train in similiar fashions and those methods are very similar to what has been used for decades.

    Just who are bodybuilding authorities and can just anyone determine who they are? The longer I am in the sport the more authorities I see. Isn't that amazing.

    Thanks, Paul and MonStar for your kind words. I do try to contribute in a positive fashion but that is not what some perceive that I am doing. I also discovered WeighTrainer forum and have contributed to that one. Gosh, there are a lot of forums online. Most are more interesting than the HIT ones.

  2.    Support Wannabebig and use AtLarge Nutrition Supplements!


  3. #2
    Player Hater PowerManDL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    7,850
    Welcome, Vince.
    Vin Diesel has a fever.. and the only prescription is more cowbell.

    Budiak: That girl I maced
    Budiak: macked
    Budiak: heh maced
    Budiak: I wish

    ShmrckPmp5: a good thing people can't fire guns through the computer...your ass would have been shot years ago

    Y2A 47: youre smooth as hell
    Y2A 47: thats why you get outta tickets, and into panties

    galileo: you're a fucking beast and I hate you
    galileo: hate

    assgrabbers are never subtile, they will grabb ass whereever they go,public or not, I know the type, because I am one. - Rock

  4. #3
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093

    Re: Vince is here! No forum is now safe!

    Originally posted by Vince Basile
    I find it very unprofitable debating training theories with people who are not my peers. Bryan doesn't debate me on HST and he has no reason to do so except to refine his theories. He is, afterall, promoting a product and he would be foolish to stop believers from attacking dissenting opinions. A good scientist would debate dissenting opinions. There is a difference between doing science and applying it. Bryan is applying the work of others to hypertrophy. From my reading of the same literature as he has quoted I find it remarkable that he is confident about his method. Much of what he advocates goes totally against what we find advanced bodybuilders doing to grow. However, HST does embrace ideas about hypertrophy that might revolutionise the sport. Science seems to have plenty to contribute regarding frequency, loads, variety and so on. It will be interesting to watch what happens. In the past HIT was heralded as the wonder system but that method has not been used by many bodybuilders. The concept of intensity and thresholds certainly has and so has the use of negatives in workouts.
    Welcome to WBB Vince, I am glad that youre here. I think that you and chris mason and PowerManDL and them will have some interesting discussions. I am pretty sure that this quote is an example of you contradicting yourself though as many say you do and dislike you for it. You say that Bryan Haycock is applying the work of someone else etc. And how thats not good, and just discussing the negative aspects of his HST program. Then a sentence later you say " HST might revolutionise the sport." Kind of confusing to see what you really think ya know?

    MS

  5. #4
    Party of "No." Tryska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    23,191
    hello.


    that was a hell of an intro. but thanks.
    A little learning is a dangerous thing...

    Live Dangerously! Learn a Little!


    Dude, did Doogie Howser just steal my fucking car?

  6. #5
    . Delphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,020
    Welcome, Vince. This is cool- now we can talk about you in front of your back.

  7. #6
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    13
    Vince, please tell us your theory, how only 10% of bodybuilders use steroids, and the rest of the 90% are natural.

    I would like to hear this one.

    Justyn

  8. #7
    Gettin Lean Goin_Big's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,719
    Yea, I'm just gonna flat out tell ya....I didn't read any of that story, but welcome to the board
    Beachbody coaching lets you turn your hobby into a career - Beachbody

  9. #8
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093
    Originally posted by Goin_Big
    Yea, I'm just gonna flat out tell ya....I didn't read any of that story, but welcome to the board
    Hehe... anyway I read the story, pretty interesting actually. Ray Mentzer was a true monSTAR.

    MS

  10. #9
    Senior Member Kayak_boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Beach, Sydney
    Posts
    0
    Hey Vince, how ya doin'??

    Welcome on board, looking forward to your discussions with Chris etc.

    Where in Sydney are you??

  11. #10
    Senior Member Accipiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    layin up against a dumpster in a 100 dollar jumper, smothered in southern comfort.
    Posts
    4,076
    so let's see the scientific proof of all those theories.

  12. #11
    Senior Member Accipiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    layin up against a dumpster in a 100 dollar jumper, smothered in southern comfort.
    Posts
    4,076
    so let's see the scientific proof of all those theories.



    p.s. welcome aboard, good to have ya

  13. #12
    Senior of Kinesiology
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Penn State
    Posts
    1,900
    Welcome Vince,

    We can always use more people who know there stuff!
    Meet PR: 290lb bench press, 505lb dead lift @ 190lbs

    Current Training: Yoga and Weightlifting

    5'11'', Male, 175lbs, age 22

  14. #13
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    43
    Thanks to those who genuinely welcomed me. I think I am getting a complex on these sites. By the way, do those who think I am continually contradicting myself believe they will outtalk me in real life? Like the French Police inspector said, *It is always refreshing to hear the opinion of an expert.*

    West Ryde is where my 30,000 sq ft gym is. I am seldom there so email me if you want to say hello in person. Come and see applied physiology in the machines I designed and built.

    There is no contradiction in my post above. Byran uses the research of exercise scientists and other researchers to apply results to a hypertrophy specific method. The research that his method is based on will revolutionise training. Whether his recipe and template method is correct time will tell. I doubt that it is but it was a bold gesture to specify protocols. It would have been much easier to state the basic principles.

    Look, gentlemen, there is nothing wrong with a theory being false. If it is the best false theory then so what? Newton's theory of gravity is very useful. It can't account for little things like Mercury's orbit but that is not very significant. Einstein's theory explains everything that Newton's does as well as a lot that it can't explain. So Einstein's theory is better than Newton's.

    In bodybuilding there are many competing theories about training methods. HIT, volume, HST, DOMS, and so on. Well, I put DOMS in there even if I am the only person following it! I mean, we have to keep a sense of the ridiculous around here.

    Well, each method has disciples who swear their system works and is better than the others. Let me ask a question, how does HIT explain the gains that volume users achieve? According to them it shouldn't be possible. Oh, I forgot, they fudge by claiming the big guys are genetic freaks and/or use steroids, etc. Well, sorry, I don't buy that explanation. It is only a rationalisation.

    After 4 decades in the Irongame it is a bit tiring seeing the pseudo experts continue their nonsense. First we had pseudo experts like Bob Hoffman, Peary Rader and Joe Weider. Only Joe is left from that lot. Then along came a true expert in Arthur Jones. What he lacked in discipline he made up for in experience. Sergio Oliva was at his peak after Arthur trained him in Florida way back in 1972. Sergio went to Essen in Germany to compete in the Mr Olympia but forgot to kiss the judges butts like Arnold regularly did. The result? Arnold *won*. I wouldn't stand a chance debating with Arthur and neither would anyone else!!

    I did talk to Arthur back in 1992 when I patented my biceps-supinator machine. We got along just fine.

    You want to hear a good story about Arnold? He did a seminar in my gym way back in 1974. Perhaps he was at his biggest then. After he did another seminar at Tony's Gym he and the entourage came to my penthouse on Manly Beach in Sydney. So I got to ask Arnold some questions about contests. After a while he said that all the guys who come second felt the contest were fixed. He listed the guys who felt this way: Franco, Sergio, etc. He rattled off a list of most of the top guys. When he finished I said, *What about that Mr Universe contest in Florida in 1968 when Frank Zane beat you?* Arnold assure me that THAT contest WAS fixed! Seymour Koenig, who was there, told me Frank deserved to win.

    I won't mention that my 16 year old babysitter disappeared at the same time as Arnold did for half an hour. Wonder where either of them got to? We were 15 floors up and no one went out the door!?

    Some of the lads think I am knocking Bryan and his approach. Not at all. I am merely debating the truthfulness of theories and methods. That, I take it, is what discussion boards are for.

    The real pity of participating online is that soon enough the regulars make all sorts of false conclusions about what is said and claimed and this whole business is hardly worth the effort. If you fellows look around you will not see many former champions participating. Ever wonder why? Where are all the gym owners? Where are the guys who write for magazines. You should appreciate it when experienced people come and express their opinions in an honest and open fashion. I have given a lot of information away but most are unable or unwilling to accept or use it. Does that mean my information is useless and unwanted? Seems so. I really should get back to building more machines. I have an idea for a running machine. I have a new triceps machine on the drawing board. Working in an engineering factory despite the dirt, noise and danger is preferable to participating on discussion boards. Sad to say but true. Only masochists persist here if they are continually attacked and putdown.

  15. #14
    fat and small Blood&Iron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    On the Night Train
    Posts
    3,336

    Re: Vince is here! No forum is now safe!

    Originally posted by Vince Basile

    A good scientist would debate dissenting opinions.
    ...
    From my reading of the same literature as he has quoted I find it remarkable that he is confident about his method.
    Yes, this is true...if the dissenting opinion is also based on science. I have not once seen you make specific reference to the literature with which you claim to be familiar. I myself intend to write a brief article on HST and the science--or lack thereof, in you opinion--supporting it. To this end, I've dug up a good many of the articles Bryan has referenced in his articles, and some he hasn't. I have them sitting in front of me right now. There are a number of question that have already cropped up which I like to hear Bryan address. If I were to do so, though, I could easily reference the origins of my questions, journal title, page number, etc. Why are you unable to do so? Could it be because you are bluffing, and haven't in fact read the articles which you claim? This is my guess.

    I can respect your accomplishments, but find it ludicrous that you say "I find it very unprofitable debating training theories with people who are not my peers." Good science is good irrespective of its source. A corollary is that bad science, or non-science in this case, which is what I've feel you've put forth, is bad irrespective of whether you were Mr. Canada or knew Ray Mentzer personally.
    Last edited by Blood&Iron; 05-21-2002 at 12:47 AM.

    We tend to think of Sisyphus as a tragic hero, condemned by the gods to shoulder his rock sweatily up the mountain, and again up the mountain, forever. The truth is that Sisyphus is in love with the rock. He cherishes every roughness and every ounce of it. He talks to it, sings to it. It has become the mysterious Other. He even dreams of it as he sleepwalks upward. Life is unimaginable without it, looming always above him like a huge gray moon. He doesn’t realize that at any moment he is permitted to step aside, let the rock hurtle to the bottom, and go home.

    Parables and Portraits, Stephen Mitchell

  16. #15
    Senior Member davetha1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    178
    I think im going to enjoy reading your posts.

  17. #16
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    43
    So, Blood & Iron has joined the debate.

    Look, can I help it those scientists are silly? I mean, have a look at the abstracts. Silly after silly experiment.

    I have posted abstracts on the HST forum but Bryan refuses to discuss them. Maybe he is saving all the good stuff for his book? There is not much discussion of research on that site. It is a waste of my time posting there.

    How can one debate science when he doesn't respect those scientists in the first place? I have systematically gone to the research listed by Bryan that he quotes to support his position. What do I find? Poor science. I would not conclude what Bryan does from that research. Take the study purporting to demonstrate that one set is as good as three. I posted that on HST but Bryan didn't discuss my concerns. That is not my fault if he uses false research results to support his theory.

    After 43 years you would think I have a bit of a clue about training muscles. I admit that years cannot be used to support the truth of a theory or method. However, we should look closely at what the experienced people are saying. Should we discard experience and embrace the non-bodybuilder scientists views?

    If you want to challenge me as an educated person and insult me then I will vacate this site, too. I have nothing to prove to anyone here. I have been studying that crappy research for over 30 years. Arthur Jones and I agree about those scientists. Yes, there are some interesting studies and results but my what a waste of time and resources most research is.

    My peers do not criticise my intelligence or capacities.

    Yes, true theories can originate in unexpected people. Most breakthroughs in science were from young men and not exerienced scientists. Being a physique champion is no prerequisite for truth. Neither is owning a gym. However, I have yet to see any good gym equipment designed without the help of experience.

  18. #17
    Soon to be lean... Joe Black's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Cambridge, England
    Posts
    10,936
    welcome aboard Vince.

    you have an interesting back ground!

    Bear in mind that B&I did not insult you, and you won't be insulted on wbb whilst you debate pleasantly. The boards here are moderated very strictly and we do our best to keep things in a pleasant environment for everyone.

    So again, welcome to the site.
    http://www.wannabebig.com/logo/alnlogo_black.gif

    AtLarge Nutrition Supplements – Get the best supplements and help support Wannabebig!

    Hypertrophy Cluster Training - HCT-12 - If you want big gains in size and strength, huge decreases in body fat, or both - check out HCT-12.

    Can I have some lean muscle & strength please? – My Training Journal

  19. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    847
    Vince - Welcome. I want to ask you a question about the 1 set vs. 3 set studies that you do not seem to be a fan of. What is your problem with them? The way they were conducted? Can you specify?

    Thanks, and great stories as always, but B&I hit the nail on the head. Science is science, and we can all discuss it -- most of us it enjoy doing so!

    Again, welcome. It's going to get interesting I'm sure. ;-)

  20. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,151
    interesting..looking foward your debates...

  21. #20
    Senior Member TerryRay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Toledo
    Posts
    83
    Hi Vince,

    It is good to hear from someone who has been involved in our sport and have actual experience in the industry. Don't leave because you are not agreed with or insulted by anyone. We (I am speaking for many here) welcome your input and want to hear what everyone has to say, especially you.

  22. #21
    fat and small Blood&Iron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    On the Night Train
    Posts
    3,336
    Originally posted by Vince Basile
    So, Blood & Iron has joined the debate.

    Look, can I help it those scientists are silly? I mean, have a look at the abstracts. Silly after silly experiment.

    I have posted abstracts on the HST forum but Bryan refuses to discuss them. Maybe he is saving all the good stuff for his book? There is not much discussion of research on that site. It is a waste of my time posting there.

    How can one debate science when he doesn't respect those scientists in the first place? I have systematically gone to the research listed by Bryan that he quotes to support his position. What do I find? Poor science. I would not conclude what Bryan does from that research. Take the study purporting to demonstrate that one set is as good as three. I posted that on HST but Bryan didn't discuss my concerns. That is not my fault if he uses false research results to support his theory.

    After 43 years you would think I have a bit of a clue about training muscles. I admit that years cannot be used to support the truth of a theory or method. However, we should look closely at what the experienced people are saying. Should we discard experience and embrace the non-bodybuilder scientists views?

    If you want to challenge me as an educated person and insult me then I will vacate this site, too. I have nothing to prove to anyone here. I have been studying that crappy research for over 30 years. Arthur Jones and I agree about those scientists. Yes, there are some interesting studies and results but my what a waste of time and resources most research is.

    My peers do not criticise my intelligence or capacities.

    Yes, true theories can originate in unexpected people. Most breakthroughs in science were from young men and not exerienced scientists. Being a physique champion is no prerequisite for truth. Neither is owning a gym. However, I have yet to see any good gym equipment designed without the help of experience.
    If you wish to see my comments as insult, then so be it. By your owns standards, however, you have then insulted Bryan and a good many on his boards and now this one; I hardly feel guilty.

    Your response has merely confirmed my suspicions. If you had read the studies in question you would be able to point out in what ways they are flawed; merely saying that scientists don't know what they're doing or that the experiments were silly(Something which I do not find to be the case at all) is a cop-out. Matt Bryzcki, one of the foremost proponents of HIT, frequently points out what he feels is flawed methodology when he disputes studies referenced in support of periodization or plyometrics. He gives specifics, however. You do not. If, by your own admission, you have no respect for the science upon which Bryan has based HST, there is really nothing for him to discuss with you. Obviously, he does not find it to be flawed, else he would not have used it in the first place. Until such time as you present intelligent, specific criticisms of the research there is no reason for him to spend time personally responding to your posts. Merely bringing up this study or that is not how such scientific discourses work. Would you consider it acceptable if he chose to rebut your arguments by bringing up his own studies again? I think not, for he would have merely side-stepped your criticisms. And yet, this is exactly what you are doing.
    Last edited by Blood&Iron; 05-21-2002 at 06:38 AM.

    We tend to think of Sisyphus as a tragic hero, condemned by the gods to shoulder his rock sweatily up the mountain, and again up the mountain, forever. The truth is that Sisyphus is in love with the rock. He cherishes every roughness and every ounce of it. He talks to it, sings to it. It has become the mysterious Other. He even dreams of it as he sleepwalks upward. Life is unimaginable without it, looming always above him like a huge gray moon. He doesn’t realize that at any moment he is permitted to step aside, let the rock hurtle to the bottom, and go home.

    Parables and Portraits, Stephen Mitchell

  23. #22
    Bmx Bandit McBain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    terra australis
    Posts
    2,125
    hey Vince, ill put this in caps so you see it,

    DID YOU HAVE A GRIP COMPETITION A WHILE AGO IN YOUR GYM?


    <---- = australian
    'you cant avoid confrontation in life. it just makes things more trouble down the road. sometimes you have to look at the bull and say "f--k you bull" and grab that bull by the horns'

    -Shane

  24. #23
    Administrator chris mason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    12,607
    Ok, I have to chime in here. Blood & Iron, you are going to write an article about HST? I think that your boldness of opinion is not properly backed by results. Now, I don't think that someone need be a monster in order to have a valid opinion about bodybuidling etc., but I also think that there is a point at which an individual's results (or those of someone they have trained)are at a level where that person can profess to be an expert. I perceive your posts to be very arrogant, and that you feel that you have an expert opinion. I do not feel that your results based upon your journal back up these perceptions of mine. I would like to see you express yourself in a bit more humble of terms.


    Welcome Vince.

  25. #24
    Mike Henley MonStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,093
    Wow interesting points made by Blood&Iron. Very interesting discussion. I am just hoping that Vince you be more specific. That you recommend the DOMS training method, and back up exactly why you recommend it etc.

    MS

  26. #25
    Administrator chris mason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    12,607
    Ok guys, let us consider a few things. I am sure this guy (Vince) is no physiologist, and he doesn't play one on the internet . So, he may not have a solid scientific basis for his opinions. This does not mean it is invalid (although I am not saying it is valid as I have not really seen what exactly it is). If one looks hard enough, one can find a "scientific" study to backup nearly any opinion on training. As you all know, I do not dismiss science, I tend to embrace it. You will also note, I rarely qoute any scientific studies, I only use generally accepted anatomical and physiological facts when backing an argument with science. This is due to the above referenced fact, studies can be found or twisted in any manner an intelligent presenter wishes. If I do qoute a study, I only do so if its results are in accordance with what my real world experience dictates. So, maybe he advocates what he does because it works for him. Of course, if he uses anabolics and it works for him, it may not be a solid practice because the drugs alter the training equation (as I have stated numerous times in the past).

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •