The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness
Latest Article

The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness

Itís 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 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 64 of 64

Thread: The Real Deal

  1. #51
    Porn Star YatesNightBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Northern England
    Posts
    2,028
    Let me have a go !!!

    Laugthing my m/fu*king ass off whiles sucking my knob !!!
    * * * * * * * * *
    Yates

    hard core n. 1 irreducible nucleus. 2 colloq. a the most committed members of a society


    'Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind'

  2. #52
    Administrator chris mason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    12,589
    Wow, what has my poor thread dengenerated to? Oh well.

  3. #53
    Gaglione Strength Chris Rodgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    LI,NY
    Posts
    9,230
    It's ok Chris, at least it is getting bumped up for the new members.
    Best Meet Lifts(Raw w/wraps):
    @165- 435 SQ 270 BE 560 DL.....1255 total
    @181- 515 SQ 295 BE 570 DL.....1375 total
    Best Meet Lifts(Multi-ply):
    @148- 575 SQ 315 BE 515 DL.....1400 total
    @165- 680 SQ 380 BE 540 DL.....1555 total
    @181- 700 SQ 375 BE 535 DL.....1605 total
    Best Gym Lifts(Raw w/wraps)
    515 SQ 302.5 BE 585 DL

  4. #54
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    94
    I just wanted to post some of my views on PowerManDL's comments.

    Originally posted by PowerManDL


    *****For every study you have that says slow, controlled movements are safer, I can produce 10 more that say it isn't. Can you say that all my studies are biased, and yours aren't? Isn't that bias by itself?

    I don't think you can produce a single study that says an exercise done slow/controlled can be more dangerous than when its done ballistic/uncontrolled. Please apply common sense on this...


    ****Yeah, follow the RDA for protein. That's enough for an active athlete. <chuckle>

    Average american diet does have about 1gm protein per lb bodyweight. Thats enough for anyone. As a matter of proven fact, one needs about 0.8gm/lb bodyweight protein per day.


    *****What do nutrients, in and of themselves, have to do with growth? That's a function of total calories ingested vs. total calories expended.

    First of all Macro-nutrient = calories. If you lack (micro) nutrients (vit/min, phyto chem) in your diet, you are likely to get sick ==> no growth. 1 more example, if you do not balance your high protein intake (acidic) with vegetables/fruits (alkaline) - your bones would become weaker. If you lack anti-oxidants in your diet, you are likely to lose muscle cells. Well the list goes long enough. You just made a blind statement that ONLY calories make you grow.



    **** In conclusion, you are the standard HIT jedi, no different than a 1000 others. "Don't do explosive movements," "You won't grow unless you train to failure," "Don't train more than twice a week."

    A standard HIT jedi advocates training only 1-2 times a week. If you had read Chris Mason's posts, he has advocated routines that require hitting the gym 4 times a week.
    HIT, Hardgainer, superslow, heavy duty --- these are some principles that help a normal citizen to get in better shape without jeopardizing their social, academic or work life. If you do manage to get plenty of time to hit the gym, you are lucky. If you don't - try one of these training philosophies. You are sure to grow by devoting just 1hour (or less) per week. For many people these have given the best results ever. So why bother about devoting too much time in the gym at the cost of your job/relationship/academics? Why not do something that gurantees results with lesser efforts, even if its sub-optimal? You are not in a hurry to become pro-BB practically overnight.


  5. #55
    Player Hater PowerManDL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    7,850
    Actually, I can produce those studies, if you'd like; I didn't list them in the first place because its gonna be a search through a pile and a half of journals and maybe a few Medline searches-- but make no mistake, they are out there, and I *will* post the references if anyone wants me to.

    As far as my whole problem with the HIT philosophy in general:

    I want it to be absolutely clear that I have no objection whatsoever to the principles of training that HIT espouses; that method of training is effective, and will produce results.

    However, HIT followers tend to be fanatical in the idea that their method is not just *a* way to train, but the only way to train; and if you disagree, you're an idiot--

    Further, they rarely, if ever, back up these blanket generalizations with any real science; if they do, odds are that said science is incorrect.

    That is the issue I have with HIT-- I'm a firm believer that any sensible form of training has its place in the continuum of sports conditioning, HIT methods included. But to say that your method is better somehow than any other is just wrong. That method might be better for the time being, but a different method will almost certainly be better at another point.

    And that's what really got me mad about Chris' original posting-- to claim outright that explosive training and Olympic-style lifting was inherently more dangerous that slow movements; this may sound correct in principle, but in practice, its far from the truth.

    If anyone does want to argue *that* point with me, feel free to come on down here and have a few workouts with me; I'll also make copies of my own training logs available to anyone who wants them, to show you the "substandard results" of explosive movements.

    Now, bearing in mind that most of you here are BB's, I do concede that doing the big Olympic movements isn't really necessary; I do them because I like the results they give me in terms of strength. However, I do wish that those of you who still have open minds would not entirely rule out explosive lifting-- this is a great way to stimulate the high-threshold fibers, and despite the rampant fears, if performed *properly*, there is little risk of injury. "Properly" being the keyword here.....

    Throwing jet fuel on the bonfire,

    PowerMan

  6. #56
    Administrator chris mason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    12,589
    I think that Gary said things very nicely. Ballistic movements are more dangerous than slow controlled movements because they generate more force. Period. End of story. This is not to say that everyone who does them will be injured, only that they are MORE dangerous. I see no point in them unless you wish to compete in the sport, and then it is rather obvious that you must use them. Training to failure in an abbreviated fashion (with variances in frequency, depending on one's recovery ability--- which can vary dramatically in the individual depending on what is happening in their life) is the best way to train. Anything else takes longer and is therefore less efficient. This statement is true for the individual who wishes to gain muscular size and strength. Some people, who compete in particular sports, may benefit from varied routines because these sports demand more than just size and strength (they may require skills that necessitate repetitive motions will sub-maximal resistance etc.).

  7. #57
    Player Hater PowerManDL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    7,850
    Originally posted by chris mason
    I think that Gary said things very nicely. Ballistic movements are more dangerous than slow controlled movements because they generate more force. Period. End of story. This is not to say that everyone who does them will be injured, only that they are MORE dangerous. I see no point in them unless you wish to compete in the sport, and then it is rather obvious that you must use them. Training to failure in an abbreviated fashion (with variances in frequency, depending on one's recovery ability--- which can vary dramatically in the individual depending on what is happening in their life) is the best way to train. Anything else takes longer and is therefore less efficient. This statement is true for the individual who wishes to gain muscular size and strength. Some people, who compete in particular sports, may benefit from varied routines because these sports demand more than just size and strength (they may require skills that necessitate repetitive motions will sub-maximal resistance etc.).
    <cracks knuckles> Ahh, another spirited debate! Excellent.

    Ok, I'll argue your point about training to failure being most efficient, on these grounds:

    "The main objective of a [mass] training routine is the maximal activation of protein catabolism....., which in turn stimulates the synthesis of contractile proteins during rest periods. Since the total amount of degraded protein is maximal when loads ranging between 5 to 7 and 10 to 12 RM are lifted, this specific training intensity (repeated effort and submaximal effort methods) is recommended."

    That passage was taken from "Science and Practice of Strength Training" by Dr. Vladimir Zatsiorsky, p. 208;

    Further (from p. 102),

    "If the number of lifts is not maximal [in a given set], mechanical work diminishes somewhat. However, if the amount of work is relatively close to maximal values (e.g., if 10 lifts are performed instead of the 12 maximum possible), then the difference is not really crucial. It may be compensated for in various ways, for instance by shortening time intervals between sequential sets. It is a common belief that the maximal number of repetitions in a set is desirable, but not necessary, to induce muscle hypertrophy."

    Now, basically what all this is saying is that you need to get the most efficient breakdown of protein to get results, not just training to failure. Hypertrophic stimuli involve more than just training to failure; you have to account for neural factors, metabolic factors, mechanical factors, and each of those can be subdivided further into their own categories-- the point is, making a blanket statement about muscular growth, saying that you have the "best" way to train is not just arrogant, but is also grossly mistaken.

    The body doesn't have one specific way of reacting to any stimulus, weight training included; it adapts and it changes. Taking that into account, the idea of a single, best training method is not just unlikely, but down right impossible.

    All the best,

    PowerMan

    P.S.-- the book I'm referencing was compiled from data taken from over 1000 Olympic athletes, Soviet and Eastern European training concepts, international scientific data, and of course the author's own experience as a consultant and coach for Soviet teams for nearly 30 years--- so just keep that in mind when you reply.......

  8. #58
    Administrator chris mason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    12,589
    I will keep in mind that the Soviet athletes (as those in other countries) take steroids. This fact negates the effect that excessive training volume can have (i.e. steroids allow much greater volume and subsquent recovery). Now, let's assume that the good doctor is correct is his theory that training to failure is not necessary to maximally stimulate growth, and that shortening time intervals between sets and extra volume can compensate for sub-maximal sets. The point that you have never referenced is the fact that the body has a limited capacity to recover from weightlifting exercises. In other words, let's compare training regimens. Ok, on my end, I suggest limited sets taken to failure (anywhere from 2-6 per bodypart depending on the trainee's relative level of developement, more developed requires fewer sets, and the bodypart involved), on your end, higher volume with sub-maximal sets are recommended. Now, let's take a trainee who would use 3 sets to failure for chest (relatively advanced trainer---350 lb bench press) using my recommendations. For your recommendation, I will say that the trainee would perform 10 sets and stop 2 reps short of failure. Now, I will assume that both methods ellicit a similar degree of muscular stimulation (or protein catabolism as the doctor puts it). In both cases, the trainee is DRUG FREE. Obviously the amount of energy required to achieve sufficient stimulation varies dramatically between the 2 methods, a great deal less using the limited sets. The saved energy of the limited routine can and will be used by the body to aid in recovery and (hopefully) overcompensation. With the greater volume routine, the body will have a higher hill to climb to recover from the exercise session, thus leaving less of that precious energy to put towards overcompensation. While the average male can increase his strength by 300%, his recovery ability can realize only about a 50% increase. It does not take a rocket scientist to ascertain that overtraining will become a factor quickly as a trainee increases his or her strength. Of course, for athletes using steroids, this is all a moot point. Periodization can help to overcome this overtraining problem, but it is less efficient than limited set training is in the first place because periodization inherently involves periods of little or no progress (loads that are non growth stimulating) while limited sets taken to failure allow for more or less continuous overcompensation (no lull periods). So, which is best for the natural trainee, I think it is obvious.

  9. #59
    Player Hater PowerManDL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    7,850
    First, to refute the claim about Soviet steroid usage, here's a few quotes from Dr. Michael Yessis' book, "Secrets of Soviet Sports Fitness and Training", pp. 185-89:

    "For too many years American coaches have cited drug use as the reason for the Soviet Union's repeated victories in international meets.....As [a previous chapter] pointed out, sophisticated sports research and superior training techniques--not drugs-- are the reasons for the Soviet success......"

    Continuing,

    "Yes, there was indeed a time when athletes in the USSR experimented widely with drugs. The Soviets have always looked for new and different methods that might give their athletes a competitive edge, and drugs were once seen as an area worthy of exploration...."

    "....Soviet coaches and athletes have told [Dr. Yessis] stories of some athletes who continue to use these substances but [his] overall impression is that the Soviets now generally perceive drugs to be counter-productive. The athletes who do take steroids tend to be the weaker, less-accomplished one trying to make the grade. Their elite counterparts don't really feel the need for the boost that these drugs allegedly provide."

    Further,

    "[Dr. Yessis] also learned that even those athletes who continue to consume these drugs......take them in a unique way......These athletes take the drugs only in the early preparatory stage of their training schedule-- many weeks and months before competition."

    "Soviet research also shows that heavy use of steroids actually slows the muscles down and weakens the joints, thus leading to a poor performance and an increased risk of injury........Soviet coaches today are insisting that their athletes avoid drugs completely, while in too many cases American coaches are content to look the other way."

    Finally,

    "What do the Eastern-bloc athletes use in lieu of drugs? The previous chapters of this book should help answer that question. The Soviets rely on techniques ranging from restorative approaches to nutritional programs. And obviously these seem to be working rather well."

    Regarding energy expenditure as a function of set volume and its effect on recovery, here's another quote from Zatsiorsky's book:

    "According to [the energetic theory of hypertrophy], the crucial factor for increasing protein catabolism is a shortage in the muscle cell of energy available for protein synthesis during heavy strength exercise. The synthesis of muscle proteins requires a substantial amount of energy.....For each instant in time, only a given amount of energy is available in a muscle cell. This energy is spent for the anabolism of muscle proteins and for muscular work. Normally, the amount of energy available in a muscle cell satisfies these two requirements. During heavy resistive exercise, however, almost all available energy is conveyed to the contractile muscle elements and spent on muscular work.

    "Since the energy supply for the synthesis of proteins decreases, protein degradation increases......the mass of proteins catabolized during heavy resistive exercise exceeds the mass of proteins that is newly synthesized......

    "Whatever the mechanism for stimulating muscle hypertrophy, the vital parameters of a training routine that induce such results are exercise intensity (the exerted muscular force) and exercise volume (the total number of repetitions, performed mechanical work)."

    Now, when he refers to intensity here, he's using the accepted scientific definition of the term, which is % of the 1RM in the given exercise, not a reference to training to failure.

    In and of itself, he lists no reason that training to failure would have any greater effect on this usage of energy, or protein breakdown, or ultimately in the adaptive reconstruction-- shortly, there is no reason that training to failure would have any greater effect on hypertrophy, provided that an overload was created in terms of mechanical work performed;

    In other words, it may be as simple as this: you do two sets of 10 to failure, with 60 lbs- the total load is 2*10*60, or 1200. But if I break that up, so that I do three sets of eight with 70 lbs, not to failure, I've done 3*8*70, or 1680;

    Based on the information, the three sets of 8 is superior in terms of total work performed, and will thus result in greater effect in terms of hypertrophy.

    Now I do realize that there is a limit to the body's recovery ability, but that limit is not nearly as low as many have been led to believe; as long as you've got a proper diet, sleep enough and allow at least 72 hours rest per body part (on average, this number will obviously fluctuate), there won't be any problem with doing 3-6 working sets per body part, though I would involve a periodization scheme so that a higher-volume workout wouldn't be used every session.

    Finally, one last quote from Dr. Z about training methods in general:

    "Many have attempted to answer the question: What kind of training is more effective-- lifting of maximal or intermediate weights? This is similar to the question of whether 800-m runners should run in training distances shorter or longer than 800 m. They should run both. The same holds true for athletes training strength; they should employ exercises with different RM's"

    End of my latest rant,

    PowerMan

  10. #60
    Administrator chris mason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    12,589
    If you believe that bullsh*t about Soviet athletes now not using drugs then you must be using other kinds of drugs yourself (psychoactive drugs I mean)! That is the biggest crock I have ever heard in my entire life! That is the problem, people believe that stuff and then they believe these routines that the supposed "natural" athletes use. Steroids allow for massive training volumes. So, one can train that way if one takes them.

    Your statements about 72 hours rest are also ridiculous. For some people, 72 hours are quite sufficient, for others, they may require 2-3 times that must rest. You cannot generalize in such a fashion about recovery required. The volume of training that humans can "withstand" is quite amazing, however, the volume of training that is most productive for size and strength gains in natural trainees is actually quite little.

    Look, we can go around and around at this, but it really gets tiresome. Like I have said before, let the readers make their own decision. I will say this, there are a lot more trainees on this site (and others), who are natural, who have made the best gains of their life training with the methods that I recommend. Training to failure with limited sets and sufficient rest is the best method of training for the natural weightlifter. Within the previous parameters, there are obvious variations for the uniqueness of each trainee, but the basic principles hold true and have done so for years and years.

  11. #61
    Player Hater PowerManDL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    7,850
    Originally posted by chris mason
    If you believe that bullsh*t about Soviet athletes now not using drugs then you must be using other kinds of drugs yourself (psychoactive drugs I mean)! That is the biggest crock I have ever heard in my entire life! That is the problem, people believe that stuff and then they believe these routines that the supposed "natural" athletes use. Steroids allow for massive training volumes. So, one can train that way if one takes them.

    Your statements about 72 hours rest are also ridiculous. For some people, 72 hours are quite sufficient, for others, they may require 2-3 times that must rest. You cannot generalize in such a fashion about recovery required. The volume of training that humans can "withstand" is quite amazing, however, the volume of training that is most productive for size and strength gains in natural trainees is actually quite little.

    Look, we can go around and around at this, but it really gets tiresome. Like I have said before, let the readers make their own decision. I will say this, there are a lot more trainees on this site (and others), who are natural, who have made the best gains of their life training with the methods that I recommend. Training to failure with limited sets and sufficient rest is the best method of training for the natural weightlifter. Within the previous parameters, there are obvious variations for the uniqueness of each trainee, but the basic principles hold true and have done so for years and years.
    Chris, is it *possible* for you to keep these debates professional? I mean seriously-- I'm just trying to present an alternative viewpoint, and you act like I'm kicking you in the groin.

    As far as those quotes, you can contact Dr. Yessis yourself-- he worked with Soviet coaches and athletes far more than anyone else, and certainly more than you did. If you can back up your beliefs with actual references, I'm all for it, but I think this is just more of your habit of trying to push your personal beliefs as facts.

    My statement about 72 hours of recovery was also listed as a *minimum,* if you'll read what I wrote. I never said it was the one optimal recovery time.

    Additionally, Chris, if you're way is the be-all and end-all, then why do the people who train the elite athletes in all sports not use them? Don't give me the steroid cop-out either; I want real reasons.

    .....which brings it back to my original point: high volume works, low volume works; heavy weights work, lighter weights work; explosive training works, slow training works; and any combination of the above, done properly, will produce results. Its all a matter of where you are and what your specific needs are at the moment.

    As far as letting the reader make the decision, I'm all for it. But I just want them to have ALL the facts before they decide. Maybe they've made good gains using your principles; but maybe switching programs to say, low volume, high frequency, high load, explosive movements every few microcycles would yield better results. The point is, keep an open mind about everything; biology is a fluid, dynamic, ever-changing thing-- bringing about changes in that mechanism must also be a dynamic process.

    Have a nice day,

    PowerMan

  12. #62
    Senior Member Anthony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,020
    "First, to refute the claim about Soviet steroid usage, here's a few quotes from Dr. Michael Yessis' book, "Secrets of Soviet Sports Fitness and Training", pp. 185-89:

    "For too many years American coaches have cited drug use as the reason for the Soviet Union's repeated victories in international meets.....As [a previous chapter] pointed out, sophisticated sports research and superior training techniques--not drugs-- are the reasons for the Soviet success......""

    Ya ... just like the American Olympic althletes are all natural, right? Because their coaches say so? Are you really that blind?
    Facebook - BW166 SQ585 BP405 DL660 CL310

  13. #63
    Administrator chris mason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    12,589
    Why is the steroid issue a copout? Steroids and other drug use is rampant in all sports. Drug tests are relatively easy to beat. Steroids change the training equation dramatically, so any technique that some doctor who coached an Olympic team used is flawed in my estimation (if used for a non drug taking trainee). If you believe that top level athletes set records without taking drugs then you are just fooling yourself. I DO believe that there may be the extremely rare exception to the rule, but that is it. 99.9% of all current world records which relate to human performance are drug tainted. Period. I'll let you in on a little secret, I know some professional athletes personally. I know them well, and they and I have discussed these issues. I do NOT know any record setting powerlifters or Olympic lifters, but I am no fool either.

    I incorrectly jumped on you about the 72 hour thing and I apologize for that. I didn't read what you wrote carefully enough.

    Something that you, and others, don't seem to realize about my methods is that they allow for variances among trainees. I am NOT MIKE MENTZER. I do not say that 1 set to failure is best for everyone. Do not put words into my mouth. I also DO keep my discussions "professional" as you say, but that does not mean that I cannot emphatically point out fallicies when I see them.

    You love to qoute from journals and the words of certain doctors and scientists. What you seem to not understand is that many of the men whom you qoute have a financial or career stake in what they write. Just because a coach or scientist writes something doesn't make it correct. I know that many strength coaches really have no clue. Again, if someone has good genetics and takes drugs, almost any routine will net them great gains. That doesn't mean that the routine was the best way to train. Coaches and their methodologies gain recognition because of the athletes they coach, not because of their methods. They are just smart enough to pick the right people to coach and make themselves look good. That isn't to say that if the same person was trained differently that they wouldn't do even better.

    When I write, I write MY OWN ideas. I don't feel the need to qoute others. I KNOW my ideas stand on their own merit. Others seem to feel the need to have some scientist or "expert" back their opinion. I don't feel the need for that (I use references very sparingly). I think that, in and of itself, speaks volumes about what I have to say.

  14. #64
    Player Hater PowerManDL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    7,850
    Originally posted by chris mason
    When I write, I write MY OWN ideas. I don't feel the need to qoute others. I KNOW my ideas stand on their own merit. Others seem to feel the need to have some scientist or "expert" back their opinion. I don't feel the need for that (I use references very sparingly). I think that, in and of itself, speaks volumes about what I have to say.
    Ok, and that's all well and good-- but without some science, some research, to back those ideas up, how can you know that its right? I mean, you can just observe the effects to see if *results* are obtained, but how can you know those are the *best* results?

    That's why I quote journals, books, and strength specialists-- not because I follow their opinions to the letter, but becuase they offer up evidence to back up what I believe, what *I* have experienced to be correct. At least using those references, I have some solid ground to stand on when I make a statement.

    And yes, I'll agree with you about the majority of strength coaches and other so-called experts being idiots; but I'm very selective about the sources I choose to cite-- Dr. Zatsiorsky, for example, is highly respected, and the book I quoted from is considered a "must-have" for anyone concerned with strength-training. Same with Dr. Yessis' book on Soviet training, and with Dr. Siff and Dr. Verkhoshanky's book "Supertraining." The volume of both practical and scientific information in just those three books is *staggering,* and worth a look by anyone involved in some form of strength conditioning.

    But like I said, I just want all the cards on the table before anyone calls the game.

    All the best,

    PowerMan

Similar Threads

  1. Finally joined a real gym
    By IdaMAN in forum Bodybuilding & Weight Training
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-18-2004, 11:56 PM
  2. Real or Artificial?
    By Berserker in forum General Chat
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-16-2003, 09:10 AM
  3. overpriced crap or the real deal (cosmetics)
    By WiNgS in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-17-2003, 10:30 AM

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
  •