Latest Article

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
 Join Facebook Group       Follow on Twitter       Subscribe via RSS

# Thread: Scott Abel blogpost about overload

1. ## Scott Abel blogpost about overload

Thought this was interesting. I would love to hear some feedback about this from the members.

http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/0...edium=facebook

2. I think Scott is obviously a very good trainer and has some good ideas, but when he tries to justify his methods with some form of pseudo science he makes himself look bad in my opinion. For instance, he implies that training for power is the best way to train for hypertrophy, and the truth is quite the opposite. In fact, training explosively will elicit the adaptation of building explosive power, which, while quite useful for athletics, has little use for the bodybuilder.

He also abuses physics a bit.

SUPER simplified:

W= work
F = force
D = distance
A = acceleration
T= time

W = F x D
F = M x A
P = W/T

So, power, is a function of work, or force over a distance, over time.

Scott is confusing power and force and other Newtonian physics ideas in the article. If you are going to use physics, you should at least do so somewhat accurately and consistently.

Back to actual training, and a real world example as he uses in the article. Plyometrics are very effective at building explosive power (among other forms). If one were to perform sets of 10 plyometric jumps one would be developing a tremendous amount of power, force etc., but plyometric training does very little for hypertrophy.

Anyway, the nutshell is that his conclusion that the lifter would have benefited more from the sets of 10 reps for his goal is absolutely correct, it is his attempt at trying to sound scientific in explaining why that fails and that takes me back to my point about him being a good trainer. He should just stick to telling people what works based upon his experience and skip the scientific attempts at explaining it.

3. I agree with Chris for the most part. When you're dealing with the human body it's not as simple as F = MA. We aren't simple machines that work the same way every time. Our bodies adapt. People also tend to forget when you're in the gym your not simple working your muscles, you're also stressing your CNS. In my experience there's a place for both max effort/high weight and high volume.

4. Originally Posted by chris mason
[B]
Back to actual training, and a real world example as he uses in the article. Plyometrics are very effective at building explosive power (among other forms). If one were to perform sets of 10 plyometric jumps one would be developing a tremendous amount of power, force etc., but plyometric training does very little for hypertrophy.

Anyway, the nutshell is that his conclusion that the lifter would have benefited more from the sets of 10 reps for his goal is absolutely correct, it is his attempt at trying to sound scientific in explaining why that fails and that takes me back to my point about him being a good trainer. He should just stick to telling people what works based upon his experience and skip the scientific attempts at explaining it.
What do you think of using plyometrics in addition to strength training? I'm on a Scott Abel program right now and one of the principles for hypertrophic growth is that speed/balance movements are used to "establish neural pathways" to muscles so that when strength movements are done later in the week more muscle fiber is able to be recruited.

I am also leary about the physics aspect of his arguement...even though I agree with his conclusion. The graph was a nice visual representation of his theory, but I don't think it would get on any physics peer review articles.

5. Plyometrics can enhance absolute strength which in turn will enhance the load you can handle in the 8-12 rep range, so I think again the basic idea is a sound one.

6. Scott definitley knows his stuff and is one of the top coaches in the industry as I worked with him for a few years, but his articles can confuse many. His real world examples are the easiest things to understand and when he designs you a program and you apply it correctly you will see great results because he tailors it for you based on your current needs state. Also remember the program you are doing is one small part, its the accumulation of programs overtime that produce real results.

#### Posting Permissions

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