Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum

I couldn't agree more with Eric and Hrdgain. For myself, I could give a rats ass about hypertrophy. My overall goal is to be as strong all around as I can get. In my never-ending quest for strength I have gotten a lot bigger (start 6' 150lbs. today 6' 246lbs.), but that was just a side benefit. I personally would rather BE strong than LOOK strong any day. Merely my opinion.

__________________
Height: 6 foot
Weight: 240 pounds

Bench: 415 (1x1)
Deads: 565 (1x1)
A2G Squat: 425 (1x1)

Cardio sucks
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

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

__________________
There are in fact, two things: science, and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance. -Hippocrates of Cos
"New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common." —John Locke
"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” - Jesus Christ

"Perago Validus"

Eric, Hrdgain and Widdoes2504---

I didn't mean it to sound like anything anyone has to agree with or not agree with. There's no right or wrong.

I simply stated that my posts are based on assuming that the goal is Hypertrophy. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that that was what we were talking about. Neither approach is good or bad. Frankly I think it's great when people just do something.

When you get down to such minute specifics that we're discussing you have to base it on one or the other. In the bigger picture there's not that much difference.

I think you will all agree and especially Eric that there are different approaches depending on what your goal is especially when you're getting this specific and detailed.

They're not mutually exclusive either. Either goal brings both strength and size but in varying degrees of course.

Just clearing that up. Neither approach is better than the other..just a matter of what your own goal is..

Iron

Word

I'm going to leave much of that alone, Iron.

If you want to insist that there is one best way for everyone regardless of time under the bar then be my guest.

The Framingham study? Isn't that called the Framingham Heart study? Yes I'm sure they do resistance training in there such as far people recovering. But it's a heart study focusing on I think 50 to 76 year olds and not a study on resistance training.

The only think I will not let go is the crack about venerating doctors. You obviously haven't heard much of what I've said. I have a chronic disease that I suffer with every day of my life. One of it's symptoms is chronic fatigue. And yet I train my ass off. I give specific advice and don't speak in generalities. If I were to take the easy way out I would tell everyone to train the same way without any consideration as to their experience level and goals.

I know better than anyone about the limits of doctors. I have permanent scarring in my lungs to show for it. Don't make broad assumptions about someone you don't really know. You are new to this forum and maybe you should sit back and listen a little before you decide how much I know. Sorry but the doctor thing got me going. I'm a patient man but for right now my patience is a little short.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
or
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you act sanctimonious I will just list out your logical fallacies until you get pissed off and spew blasphemous remarks.

Maybe that is why they say doctors PRACTICE medicine. They do not know it all for everyone, sorry to say that but it is true.

I'm very sorry Eric, I didn't know our discourse was to be limited by how patient you are with it. I didn't know I was being humored.

In all honesty I'm not sure why that pissed you off so. I was simply throwing back what you threw at me and in what I thought was a light hearted way and only after your comment that I don't like Doctors, which you said first I might add.

Did you not mention that I don't like Doctors? I'd never said that either so aren't you making the same generalitys?

Did you not say that you prefer a Doctor's advice over any research? I simply said that you venerate them of course only in the context of who's advice you prefer. You do venerate a Dr's opinion over a researcher's. Did you not say that in spite of the studies I presented that you would rather listen to Doctors? What's wrong in saying that? I personally venerate researcher's over Doctors. So what? That's been an overiding part of our entire discourse. With all your insistance about things being looked at in the intentioned context can't I be given the same benefit of doubt?

I might add that I've started or ended every post with a light-hearted attempt at humor so as to context my writing in the way I intend it so as not to alow this to happen. Have I not? I don't recall any response to my attempts from you to let me know your posts are not meant mean-spirited.

It's also unfair and belittling to say I should "should sit back and listen" because I'm new. I don't recall that being a policy for newbies. Did I not show proper respect to your long time on this board? At what point in my "sitting back and listening" can I come out and speak my mind? Obviously you're not used to being refuted.

I honestly thought our relationship would be different. That we could disagree, state our reasons, and all learn from it. Again have I not over and over always addendumed my posts with praises for you for keeping it that way? I frankly don't recall it being returned no more than my attempts at keeping things lite and humerous. I'm not saying you've been anything less than gentlemanly in our threads but I will say I went out of my way to make sure my posts were not taken as mean-spirtied. For you to take that benign comment as a personal attack really is ridiculous. I have no way of knowing about your medical condition. I still don't see why that would piss you offeven if I did know???

You certainly can't think my comment was mean-spirited. Just for the record it was not, but I couldn't possbly have known that that was a sore spot. I'm very sorry to hear of your condition. I'm not sure what your particular problem is but I have a sister with a very bad case of lupus. I certainly know the ravages it can bring. I am frankly insulted that you would make an assumption, as you acuse me of doing, that I could possibly know your condition and what's worse that I would intentionally throw a barb at it. Where have I acted in a manner that would make you take my comment in a bad way?? If you agree that it was unintentional than why get so upset? Could there be another issue here?

I sincerely apologize for the turn our discourse has taken. I really hope we can continue as I've enjoyed the experience and have learned from it. However I can't be expected to know every quirky little hot spot you may have..

Unless you prefer differently I'll look forward to more enlightening debates and consider us friends..

Iron

You can refute me all you want. As far as sit back and listen I meant that you don't really know what I'm about yet you are making statements like taking the easy way out and lack of research.

You have said several things that are incorrect as far as I'm concerned. Since I disagree with you you say "I haven't done enough research.'' That kind of insistance on the infallibility of your own research makes me impatient. I.E. what you say is based on research and what everyone else says is based on anecdotal evidence. To say I throw out all science as crap so I don't have to sort it out when I refuted your very statements with scientific information in regards to training theory....yes that makes me impatient.

To say I rely ONLY on anecdotal evidence? Another very incorrect assumption. I take the lazy way out?

I said perhaps at one point that you don't like doctors and it was wrong of me to say. And yes that is a sore point because it should have been obvious if you had actually considered the things I said that great respect for doctors had nothing to do with it. Ok so I admit that I made one generalization.

But you fill a post with them and you don't see why that tries my patience. But I had decided to leave all that alone. For some reason the doctor comment got my goat and I mentioned that.

I don't expect praise for not acting like a jerk. Nor do I expect to have to give it. Now I apologize for getting irritated.

Back to what I was saying about percentages of max for strenght development. There is not complete agreement but the general consensus is between 75 and 100%. I actually said 70% which is what some experts believe and where I tend to think the max cut off is. Some oddballs put it at 60%.

To say that someone can develop max strength at intensities of less than 70% on a consistent basis, meaning despite changes in training status is to say they can do it at rep ranges more than 12. As I said some beginners can do that for a while. Generally though this is endurance territory and will do very little to effect changes in maximum strength. If you want to think about how things change in regards to training status think about the fact that as strength increases the number of reps a person can do at a certain percentage of max tends to DECREASE (example).

No I don't think there is a study proving that consistent progress in strength can be made at these low intensities. I have seen studies suggesting that 60% is endurance. And then that ranges of 70% or higher is necessary for maximal strength development. I don't know what they though of the range in between but I would venture to say that there are some people who can make progress in strength within this range but it is outside the average range.

Thanks for the amicable reply. Maybe we could both lighten up some.

I use a lot of what creative writers call facetious hyperbole. When I say you worship Doctors I don't mean that literally and it sure isn't meant to insult. I don't seek to win by insulting anyone. We learn nothing by that. I say it this way to stress my point and frankly for a little jab of humor. Can't take that? That's why I think you've enjoyed too long everyone agreeing with you so you get frustrated where you're not used to this. I've not noticed you're not on other boards which tells me you feel in your comfort zone here where you're maybe overly revered??

You say I rely WAY too much on science. That doesn't offend me. I do put more emphasis on science than anecdotes. We disagree here. So? I know you're making a point. I'm cool with that. Debates are more fun with a little good-natured jab now and then. Don't be quite so sensitive.

When I say you I often mean people with your view. When I say taking the lazy way out I don't mean to offend and call you lazy personally. I mean I believe that people of that persuasion use the in conflicting science studies to give up and feel they don't have to try to figure it out because they're all unreliable. That's all I meant by lazy, ok? There may even be some validity to that. I happen to not think so but that's me.

I was taught in writing classes that it's unecessary to always say, "Im my opinion." That's assumed by the reader. So maybe that helps explain why I write like I do.

By the same token I wasn't offended when you said I don't like Doctors. Of course I know you didn't mean that literally. You were being hyperbolic to make a point. No offense here. It actually adds to the spirit of the debate in my view. Nothing to apologize for. Don't I make my stance clear when I start most of my posts with a little humor to context what I'm about to say??

As far as filling my posts with the evidence that supports my view..well yeah I will. You're doing the same, giving me evidence that supports your view. Again there's nothing offensive about it??

On the contrary you've forced me to dig deeper than I would have into our subjects. I think you do as well. The net result is that we learn from ourselves and each other. Cool, huh?

I know I've said things you disagree with.. well duh! that's why it's called a debate. And yeah, forgive me but I do think my view is correct and yes I think some of your views are wrong. Isn't that assumed. Maybe I should star adding "IMO" all the time. It doesn't offend me and it shouldn't you. I said you haven't read the research that is against what you said. Yeah, no problem. That's when I show you what I think supports what I said. If I thought you knew what I have read I wouldn't post anything. When we show each other evidence isn't that because we feel the other hasn't seen it???Why is this personally offensive??

I think some of your aggravation comes from not being able to convince me. Well sorry. I have the same problem with you. That's part of debating. Assuming this continues, I'll keep on throwing things at you to support what I think and the way I choose to arrive at answers. If we disagree, so what? That's how we both learn.

You may have for the first time run into someone who disagrees with a lot of what you say and has a different way of coming up with opinions. Sorry. Get over it. Quit being sensitive. Nothing is meant personal. I'm afraid the aggravation will continue for both of us. But at least I haven't felt the least bit insulted. It's called spirited debate. Ever listen to Congressmen debate and rip each other's head's off than go to lunch together?

I'm frankly enjoying this and am learning from it. There's nothing to be gained from debating with people who agree with everything you say. What the hell fun is that???

Lighten up some. Let's have fun sparing and debating. I respect you as a worthy opponent and I hope you do me as well.

-----------

Now let me show you where you're wrong! ;) (did you notice the wink? I'm being facetious OK? Just trying to keep things light without having to be so damn careful and politically correct about everything I say so as not to offend Allright? Damn, I have to be that way at home, ;)I don't need it here!!!)

QUOTE: To say that someone can develop max strength at intensities of less than 70% on a consistent basis, meaning despite changes in training status is to say they can do it at rep ranges more than 12.

I agree with you here, I only mentioned that it's posible (I've said this before) but NOT optimal..

QUOTE: No I don't think there is a study proving that consistent progress in strength can be made at these low intensities. I have seen studies suggesting that 60% is endurance. And then that ranges of 70% or higher is necessary for maximal strength development. I don't know what they though of the range in between but I would venture to say that there are some people who can make progress in strength within this range but it is outside the average range.

Completely agree (as much as I hate to admit it ;) kidding here OK?)
-------------
Here's one for you.

You mentioned reps go down as weights go up. True. That's a basic tenant of HST. However, and I'm asking for your view here, what is gained if you simply drop the reps so you can handle more weight? I know you need to progress (that's the basic we all agree with whether you're looking for strength or size). But is this progressing? We can all handle more weight with less reps, so are you really progressing? Seems like false progress.

HST says that's why they're different. They don't like to wait till they're stronger to add more weight. But does your muscle know a difference if you're simply handling more weight because you're doing less reps less reps??

There's a lot of conflicting evidence both scientifically and from experience (I do value both actually). I'm still trying to put it all together in my own mind. I think perhaps for hypertrophy 10-12-even 15 reps 3 times a week and for strength as low as 4-6 rep sets no more than 2 X and maybe even for bodyparts like legs 1 X week even. If your goal though is strictly hypertrophy can't you gain optimally by a mixture of both? Certainly strength adds to size as well as pure higher rep "hypertrophy only" sets.

HST strives to do this by going from blocks of two weeks of 15, 12, 10, 8, 6 and so on. But while you're concentrating on for example 12-15 reps work isn't the lower rep work suffering in the meantime and vice versa??

Why not combine the two something like this:

Assume for sake of argument only 4 body parts, over 4 workouts. Why not low rep strength work on day one for say chest and shoulders and in the same workout higher rep work for back and legs? Say for workout 1 do 2 X 12-15 rep sets for chest and 1 set of 6-8 reps. You get both rep ranges but the 1st workout concentrates on high rep work for chest and shoulders. For back and legs do 2 X 6-8 reps and 1 12-15 rep set. Then next workout reverse it. I would do no more than 2 strength workouts a week per bodypart and 3 high rep workouts a week per body part.

Any of this make any sense?

Alright, you keep doing the same things. I'll PM you and get this to the subject of training. I'll respond to the bottom part of your post later.