Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum - View Single Post

Iron · 03-23-2007, 10:13 AM

The biggest problem I have is the idea that "we're all different." Yes we are but only to a point. You can make somewhat sweeping statements about how things work on people.

If that weren't the case than all research/studies would be useless. An example is penicillin. It does work on about everyone. We don't have to individually study every human being to see how everything works on him. We can make some assumptions.

Now it's just as true that penicillin will kill thoses alergic to it. So there are always execptions to the rule. But the rule still stands. Our bodies are alike enough that we can make some assupmtions.

Just the fact that you assume that lifting a weight will grow muscles makes a sweeping statement. Can't we just as easily say that one guy can grow by lifting weights but that may not work on everybody? Of course not..that's absurd. Lifting weights will make EVERYONE grow to some degree, I guess unless it kills them! The tweaking is where the science comes in.

QUOTE: "There is no reason that three sets of 8 or so is better than 5 sets of 5 or 4 sets of 6 for that matter."

Here's where you need to research your science my friend. You're relying on ONLY anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence works to a small degree but it's way too slow. Research shows (here I go again!) different results from different rep ranges.

How can you say that a routine worked best just because it eventually did work??? All because someone has 22" arms doesn't mean they got that way by the most efficient means.

This is a good example why research is so valuable. Why waste years trying different routines based on he said/she said? At least start with what research says and save time. Then tweak it if you have to.

Most guys are basing what they do by what Arnold and the other's first developed 40-50 years ago anyway. Yes, it worked but maybe there's a BETTER way, a quicker way. Wouldn't it be very unusual that the first thing that was tried actually turned out to be the best way?? That's what most guys swear by. However those ways become almost a religion and anyone suggesting different are blasphemors!

QUOTE: Sounds like you are looking for the best way. So you look at science. There is no best way.

Of course that's what I'm looking for, and it's possible to eventually get very close or at least to continue to get closer and closer. We all know that simply lifting weights will make you stronger/bigger. Isn't that the whole idea to find a best way of lifting those weights or at least strive for it??

What's the point of any of this if that's not possible?? I think you take the lazy way out. This attitude allows you to throw all the science away as a bunch of crap and you don't have to figure out what it all means from the large pool of sometimes conflicting evidence. It's easier to say that it doesn't matter anyway simply because it does sometimes conflict. Each study is a piece of the puzzle.That's how the excuse, "we're all different" helps to relieve us of the work needed to try and put together the science. As I said most science does apply generally speaking to everyone otherwise ALL research would be useless..

Let's use all the available info and work toward a best way..

QUOTE: Likewise I don't understand the statement that intensity is not a requirement for strength gains. What does that mean?

It IS possible to gain strengh/size without intensity the way we all understand it. I didn't say it's the best way but once again if you'll research your studies it's been proven that this is possible. In some ways it's detrimental. It is a good tool though and neccessary to make OPTIMUM gains. Studies show 70 year olds gain strength by simple lite weight lifting. Once again thi is the danger of believing something because everyone else says it's right.

QUOTE: Well the studies rarely recreate a real world scenario.

This simply isn't true. These guys aren't idiots.

QUOTE: They are usually nowhere near long term enough nor have a large enough sample to be as objective as you would have them be. Anytime studies attempt to look at larger samples for longer periods of time it fails.

Also untrue, The Framingham study for example lasted for 50 years and included 6,000 subjects. Once again these guys aren't stupid. They know what you know. They don't take 4-5 guys and study them for 2-3 days. These studies are subject to peer review. Other researchers are more than grateful to cut down a study they think was handles wrong. It's hard to get funding on bad studies as well so none of this is really an issue.

QUOTE: No. You show that X happened with a particular set of trainees with similar training status when z was done. And not all of them. Just most of them.

Usually yes but if you have 20,000 test subjects and the same thing happens to 90% of them then you might have something. The scientific method doesn't require 100% to become a reliable policy. I know one test is not always conclusive but it's still part of the puzzle.

The Doctor's that you venerate so much get all there procedures from these studies. If there aren't studies to back a new procedure or medicine than the FDA will not clear it and it will never be used. I assure you they don't care about any anecdotal evidence when it comes to clearing a particular procedure or medicine.
It's good enough for them...

QUOTE: Quote:
There's only two ways to give an answer. 1. Objective scientific studies, or 2. Subjective anecdotal opionions.
That is so VERY black and white. There are many ways to get good info.

I mean those are the two categories that all info falls under. Either from research or from anecdotal experience. What else is there???

As far as the brain thing I'm referring to modern times. When modern brain surgery was developed they had mapped out every vein and nerve before going in. Each step was reserched for efficacy. By the time they had actually cut on the brain they had a pretty good idea what would happen. Still studies/research remains the only thing the FDA and the medical community will accept before adopting a procedure. A study or enough studies have to show what will happen with a large percentage of people reliably enough before getting the green light.

BTW I do base everything I post assuming that the goal is muscular HYPERTROPHY. Maybe that'll clear up some of our disagreements.

Intensity is a relative term. Are we saying that people can make strengh gains consistently at LOW intensities? Say below 70 to 75 percent.

Yes actually studies prove that.*** Didn't say it was the best way.

*** By prove I mean this. In a study, Subjects are asked to do certain exercises in a certain way (sometimes thousands of subjects to make the results more applicable). At the end of the study they are re-tested and found to be stroger. Or the muscle cross-sectional area is measured and proven to be larger. To me that's proof. Now you may say that it only works for that or those people. But what about studies involving 1000's of people and they ALL get bigger? Am I to think that's a useless study and ignore it and stick with what Uncle Bob told me is the best routine???

Come on..

Iron