Muscle and Brawn Forums

Muscle and Brawn Forums (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/index.php)
-   Muscle Building and Bodybuilding (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Training Confusion and "Science" (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=212)

BendtheBar 07-06-2009 10:38 AM

Training Confusion and "Science"
 
This is a subject that I think about often, and I would love to hear your feedback...

Many, many bodybuilding and training gurus have systems that are based on science...but they all generally contradict one another...

Dr Squat.. Dr. Squat is a big believer in periodization and his 7 primary principles of lifting, which of course are based on science. And from this, Dr. Squat has developed the ABC training system. ABC is a split routine with heavy, light and moderate days.

Ellington Darden. Ell Darden's books are stuffed with scientific studies that back HIT training. Ell believes in full body workouts and one set to failure per exercises... 2-3 times a week.

John Little. John little just might be the king of stuffing science into his books. He believes in static contraction holds, and no conventional reps at all. His workouts involved less then 1 minute total workout time.

Casey Butt. One of the smartest guys in the iron game...Casey believes in old school training...full body workouts, not to failure, multiple times per week.

And of course we have the less then scientific, but no less persuasive...

Dante. DC Training involves split routines, training to failure, negative reps, and only 3 days rest between bodypart workouts. There are some big dudes that use DC Training.

Ronnie Rowland. Ronnie preaches his own brand of training...Slingshot Training (STS)...Slingshot is good old fashion high volume training, nut incorporates de-load periods making more of a dual-factor based system.

--------------------------------------------------

On and on we could go. My point is this:

Most of these training systems are based on science and studies. (Most, not all). But they all contradict one another. What is your take on training, and why do you believe what you believe?

RickB 07-06-2009 10:40 AM

I believe most people long to believe in something. It helps maintain focus if there is a backbone to what they are practicing. This is no different with Religion.

I believe you need to try something that fits you mentally first and foremost if you are the type to dissect something. If it gets results and satisfies you physically and mentally then I say "give it hell!". Other than that, I think this stuff is way too often over-thought.

The basics are what I think is most important and that is finding the right balance of a solid routine (whether it's someone else's or your own), good diet, and plenty of rest.

BendtheBar 07-06-2009 10:40 AM

Rick, great post. I think you nailed it head on. Many training threads back a system because of the science, but as we all know - there is a study to back up just about everything. In essence, they are simply backing the science that either makes the most sense to them, or that backs up their philosophy.

None of my training approaches were formed with any science in mind. I didn't not train to failure for any other reason then I found it annoying. And I don't perform higher rep sets of 8-12 because I find that annoying too.

Joe Weider had it right when he talked about instinctive training. I don't believe training complexity nor training science is the golden key to strength and size gains.

Obviously, science can get us thinking about training techniques such as slow negatives, or periodization, but it can't create an uber system like Mentzer attempted to do.

A lifter needs to stick with a system for a while to get the feel of it, and adapt it to his/her body and needs.

Many paths lead up the mountain. it is up to you to clear your own path.

gynosaur 07-06-2009 10:45 AM

I have read one of Clarence's Bass's later books. He tackled this apparent paradox. I think he had it right. The problem isn't that there are contradictions, it is that the theories are overly simplistic. Every one of these training theories takes a single idea, discovers it holds merit and then goes hog wild applying it like it was the only idea. Clarence made another psuedo-scientific discovery. He noted that in two apparently opposed camps, there were some really big dudes. So both styles were working. You can over think this stuff. And we are talking about optimization. So they all get results but arguably one works 3% better then the next, for some people, sometimes. So I still read them all, try everything out, and keep what I like. But getting religious about a training approach is just small minded.

BendtheBar 07-06-2009 10:45 AM

Welcome to the forum and great first post.

What you have touched on makes me think of "Macro" training concepts...or training tools that can, or could be used in any training routine to make it work. I stress the word "can" and not "should."

For example, training with progressive resistance is a macro training tool...it could be used in all routines.

Training to failure is not a macro training tool. Why? Certain training philosophies are dead set against training to failure.

Of course, someone could then say...but ALL training tools are disputable. Someone may develop a training system where progression of weight is never used (possible by upping intensity ad nauseum), but the point of a MACRO tool is that it COULD fit in ALL systems.

Am I making sense? I think Bass was on the right track...people do over-think training. Sometimes we even need to over-think it to get people back to square 1 again.

maokoto 07-13-2009 02:45 AM

I agree to the point that a training system or routine must fit you mentally.

For example, maybe one person with a 4 day routine you will workout for two months then quit because "it takes a lot of time and get me stressed" while that same person would go on for years with a 3 day routine (making much more progress) just because it suits his training tolerance. And that is considering only the days-per-week variable, wich is one of thousands!!.

I also agree that there are some Macro training tools that fit all systems and that opposing training philoshophies agree with. I find basic compound movements is another tool many agree to be useful.

And yes, we do think to much. Sometimes we need to get back to our "first love" when we first meet the weights and lifted then with passion, without thinking so much in the tempo or if we will or not deload next week .

BendtheBar 07-13-2009 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maokoto (Post 1180)

And yes, we do think to much. Sometimes we need to get back to our "first love" when we first meet the weights and lifted then with passion, without thinking so much in the tempo or if we will or not deload next week .

Very good advice.

My basics have always been:

1) Progression
2) Food
3) Heavy compounds

I believe this formula works for almost any routine.

maokoto 07-14-2009 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuscleandBrawn (Post 1193)
Very good advice.

My basics have always been:

1) Progression
2) Food
3) Heavy compounds

I believe this formula works for almost any routine.

Indeed a good formula. Mine is the same except I am no so careful with food:).

However I am considering the idea of making a bulk period like never befor for this winter.

Talking about progression, I am reading "beyond bodybuilding" from Pavel Tsautsoline right now. It has interesting progression schemes, and very heavy (all of them equal or below 5 reps)

BendtheBar 07-14-2009 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maokoto (Post 1218)
Indeed a good formula. Mine is the same except I am no so careful with food:).

However I am considering the idea of making a bulk period like never befor for this winter.

Talking about progression, I am reading "beyond bodybuilding" from Pavel Tsautsoline right now. It has interesting progression schemes, and very heavy (all of them equal or below 5 reps)

That book is on my "to read" list. I like heavy work, but approaching 42, 90%+ work is becoming less of a viable option for me.

Have you read about the 2 week bulking/cutting cycles?

maokoto 07-14-2009 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuscleandBrawn (Post 1221)
Have you read about the 2 week bulking/cutting cycles?

Nope, never read about it. Appart from "burn the fat feed the muscle" and "the warrior diet" I have not read much about nutrition


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.