View Single Post
Old 08-13-2010, 07:00 PM   #7
kitarpyar
Senior Member
Max Brawn
Points: 23,931, Level: 94 Points: 23,931, Level: 94 Points: 23,931, Level: 94
Activity: 50% Activity: 50% Activity: 50%
 
kitarpyar's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,737
Training Type: Fullbody
Fav Exercise: Deadlift
Reputation: 121110
kitarpyar is a master memberkitarpyar is a master memberkitarpyar is a master memberkitarpyar is a master memberkitarpyar is a master memberkitarpyar is a master memberkitarpyar is a master memberkitarpyar is a master memberkitarpyar is a master memberkitarpyar is a master memberkitarpyar is a master member
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andys_trim View Post
That's a load of crap. Has anyone heard of McMaster University?
Yeah, it's a Canadian university, and a pretty decent one for engineering. I dont have much idea about their physiology departments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BendtheBar View Post
Someone just told me it's peer reviewed, so it's "valid". I'm feeling ill.
By and large, the peer-review system works well in engineering and natural sciences. This is not to say that this is a fool-proof system. There has been multiple instances where folks have bluffed through the system. I wouldn't hold anything sacrosanct just because it has passed peer-review.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BendtheBar View Post
If anything it reveals that an extended TUT is superior for a newb. Weight + greater time = much greater stress for a newb.

But as the body rapidly adapts to this light weight, progression is required. Light weight becomes heavy weight, and the study's conclusion collapses in upon itself.

Let them do leg extensions for light weight. That's working real well for the armies of gym rats who aren't making progress.
My main issue with the way science is done today is that research results are sensationalized way too much. If only they had not felt the need to sensationalize their work by making tall claims of "new paradigms" and bothered to look at the results without their retard filters, they would have seen that all the results say is this: total workout volume (weight x reps x sets) is important.

This isn't a "new" paradigm as they claim. This is something that has been known for ages by bodybuilders, the only difference being that those meatheads applied this idea much more sensibly than the pencil necks - i.e. by going relatively high volume with HEAVY weights instead of pussy weights (and exercises).

Last edited by kitarpyar; 08-13-2010 at 07:03 PM.
kitarpyar is offline   Reply With Quote