-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 23011)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/fit/ - Fitness & Health
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 230 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2018-08-24 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /gardening/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Science backed training advice getting boring? L1ft1ng!!R4BQVmBQH4 18/09/01(Sat)11:30 No. 23011
23011

File 153579420526.jpg - (174.69KB , 1038x731 , proxy_duckduckgo_com.jpg )

Are the science backed fitness guys getting boring?

Schoenfeld, Helms, Israetel and their add on people like Steve Hall, all spouting science backed training advice.

Study after study comes out and they all have their own videos on it, but there is nothing new about how to train that hasn't been said over and over again.

Thoughts?


>>
JCX!bB6vC9u.Vc 18/09/01(Sat)17:20 No. 23019

i was thinking the same thing for quite a long time. i think the answer is that at this point there isn't really anything groundbreaking to discover, cause all the different resistance training variables needs to be managed, modified and addressed on the specificity of the individual.

so things like number of sets, type of progression, exercises choice, proximity to failure, etc.. all needs to be addressed on the individual, and you can see it clearly from the big variance that you can find in any given study, where you have outliers that vary from people growing muscles and strenght like if they were on steroids, to non responders sometimes even losing muscle. all with the same program.

so in the end there are still some stuff to verify and research, but the "big" and most important matters are already pretty clear. is on the trainer the work to individualize it for each and every one of their client, and one of the most important skill he could develop will be (with experience) to recognize almost immediately the type of client he's dealing with and begin to act and program accordingly.

i can tell you, what i value the most at the moment is particular views and interpretations that some really smart trainers have that are ahead of others, creating programs that can really deliver results and are used and programmed over YEARS, not months or even weeks (like some trainers do).

i dont'know where are you from, but i can tell you here in italy the focus is shifting SO MUCH on natural bodybuilding and lot of very good and smart personal trainer are killing it and improving their programming going (imho) ahead of american colleagues, programming on entire years and more, with great specificity. at the last wnbf worlds, for example, majority of people that won the podium places were trained by the same italian coach with his particular kind of periodization and principles he bases his training on, but all the material it's only in italian for now.

that's only my 2cents like a personal trainer myself


>>
Anonymous 18/09/14(Fri)14:32 No. 23274

I mean did you expect research to show something groundbreaking that the decades of thousands of bros and coaches experimenting in the gym wouldn't have shown?

Our body isn't like technology that suddenly experiences leaps forward -- it's an 180,000 year old organism.

It's an inverted 80%. A simple, but solid program and diet will give you 80% of your results, with the last 20% in fancy programming and dietary options only being marginally beneficial.


>>
L1ft1ng!!R4BQVmBQH4 18/09/15(Sat)11:04 No. 23296

>>23274

That's my point. They aren't finding anything revolutionary but are somehow getting a lot of attention.

Now they've moved onto selling (scientifically backed) programs, which are basically the same as all the other programs.

It's a con.


>>
JCX!bB6vC9u.Vc 18/09/16(Sun)05:11 No. 23318

>>23296
i know, they are becoming the marketing gurus that always rejected


>>
L1ft1ng!!R4BQVmBQH4 18/09/16(Sun)11:54 No. 23320

>>23318

There is a great discussion I've just across in this thread on Lyle's forum.

The science guys do indeed appear to have gone full guru.

http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showthread.php?t=35059


>>
JCX!bB6vC9u.Vc 18/09/16(Sun)16:47 No. 23322

>>23320
and the Aragon thing was really the cherry on the cake


>>
L1ft1ng!!R4BQVmBQH4 18/09/16(Sun)19:42 No. 23325

>>23322

The 'evidence based' guys all get together and pat each other on the back during their hour long youtube videos.

I think we'll start to see some cracks appear soon, Israetel will do what he can to push volume, along with Schoenfeld, while a couple of the others start referring back to mechanical tension as the key driver for hypertrophy.


>>
Anonymous 18/09/17(Mon)01:51 No. 23330


>>
JCX!bB6vC9u.Vc 18/09/17(Mon)03:06 No. 23332

>>23325
It's kinda simple in reality. More volume is better ONLY when it's not slowing the rate of progression on the mechanical tension aspect. for example, if A is progressing at 5% every week (strength wise) with 10 sets x week and we increase his volume to 20 x week and he is STILL progressing at at least 5% every week, then more volume here is better (at least in the SHORT TERM..). But if subject B progress 5% every week at 10 sets x week and at 20 he is just progressing slower or not at all, then lower volume is better. The key is the highest volume with which you can progress the most, and probably a little lower (for reducing injury risk and for increasing the time that occurs every time before approaching the overreaching state, before having to take a deload).

That's the thing, in every Schoenfeld study or whatever, the subjects, even with that high volume, are still increasing weight/reps every week on the exercises (for whatever reason, it can be more motivation, more rest, whatever), even in the last "45 sets to failure x week for quads" study! BUT if it isn't the same for you, then all you are doing is losing time doing junk volume, overreaching sooner and increasing injury risk tenfolds. If those subjects didn't manage to increase their strength, i can bet they would not realize that much hypertrophy, probably lot of edema, intracellular water, increased glycogen storages, etc.. (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy we could call it).

In practice, if a subject is not progressing in strenght (weight/reps/..), then all that high volume is useless. Much better a lower volume approach. It's always been the art of finding that sweet spot for that particular subject, there is no fucking perfect number of sets x week for everyone, it's impossible, there is no fucking need to study it again, and all the inter variability in muscle hypertrophy response during these such studies demonstrated this very clearly.


>>
L1ft1ng!!R4BQVmBQH4 18/09/17(Mon)11:51 No. 23337

>>23332

>In practice, if a subject is not progressing in strenght (weight/reps/..), then all that high volume is useless. Much better a lower volume approach.

> there is no fucking need to study it again

I think we're on the same page here.

Who the hell has time for 45 sets per week?



[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason