Has the scientific community improved training/physics in the the past 15 years?

[Fit2Serve]

It's funny in the 70's Arnold, serg, franco, lui, and Franck had such impressive pecs. But today you have guys like Ian valier with their pancake chests. We just got lazy

ah man i knew someone would go there lol
see this is what i am talking about.
you REALLY think people got lazy? LMAO thats the reason for Ian's chest?
throw science and physics out the door. has nothing to do w bone structure, tend insertions, muscle fiber type, on and on.... its just lazy.
and Dennis Wolf just never trained calves. Niether does Ian. Phil Heath just likes having a small chest. Not cuz he has narrow clavicles. he's just lazy.
Got ya. Sounds totally logical.

 

[foxman101]

There are a million different variables …
From the way machine are made and constructed , to the quality of protein , to the lack of quality in food.
just in the last 20 years science has found insane ways to make a chicken beast turn into the size of a turkey, same with cows etc etc. we are def eating less healthy .. I don’t care what you do, where you go, you won’t be eating “great” there are few people that have the $, time and effort to do it properly.
Machines have evolved , I mean, come on.. an old school gym had maybe 15 machines .. basic stuff.. now we got machines for the butterfly crotch maneuver ..
I think the quality of gear has decreased as a “whole” throughout the community.. that is another variable.

just so much to account for it’s almost impossible to put a finger on a yes or no

 

[lookslikesausage]

It's funny in the 70's Arnold, serg, franco, lui, and Franck had such impressive pecs. But today you have guys like Ian valier with their pancake chests. We just got lazy

But you could also say that Franco had relatively small arms in comparison to his chest and back.. Nubret had underdeveloped legs. I think guys back then spent a lot of time working their chests and prioritized it often at the expense of leg training. Other than Platz, there were a handful of guys back then who had exceptional leg development.

 

[lookslikesausage]

There are a million different variables …
From the way machine are made and constructed , to the quality of protein , to the lack of quality in food.
just in the last 20 years science has found insane ways to make a chicken beast turn into the size of a turkey, same with cows etc etc. we are def eating less healthy .. I don’t care what you do, where you go, you won’t be eating “great” there are few people that have the $, time and effort to do it properly.
Machines have evolved , I mean, come on.. an old school gym had maybe 15 machines .. basic stuff.. now we got machines for the butterfly crotch maneuver ..
I think the quality of gear has decreased as a “whole” throughout the community.. that is another variable.

just so much to account for it’s almost impossible to put a finger on a yes or no

It's easy to think that but it's just not the case. Please show me a Pullover machine that it is superior to an old Nautilus Pullover. Okay, so not many companies actually make a Pullover machine. Show me a better plate loaded Chest Press than the Flex Leverage Chest Press. If we're talking about machines from the last ten years, even twenty years, you won't find one. Nebula made a great Hack Squat on par with Flex's, Cybex, and the Bodymaster but other than that, a better one doesn't exist. Again, 80 and maybe early 90's saw the best pieces coming out IMO.

 

[MasteroniPepperoni]

ah man i knew someone would go there lol
see this is what i am talking about.
you REALLY think people got lazy? LMAO thats the reason for Ian's chest?
throw science and physics out the door. has nothing to do w bone structure, tend insertions, muscle fiber type, on and on.... its just lazy.
and Dennis Wolf just never trained calves. Niether does Ian. Phil Heath just likes having a small chest. Not cuz he has narrow clavicles. he's just lazy.
Got ya. Sounds totally logical.

Not saying that at ALL. Genetic weaknesses and lagging body parts are difficult to bring up no matter what. They all look freaky and train hard

i'm talking about the average Joe that reads a study ..

 

[MasteroniPepperoni]

Also, individual responses to differences in training methods. Science can’t really explain why some things work for one and not for another

 

[maldorf]

Do we have any experienced power lifters here? I think that in the past 30 years or more than the bench shirts and power suits have become more advanced? That would raise the records for assisted lifts. Are the raw lifts much closer to what they used to be?

 

[heavyhitter]

Do we have any experienced power lifters here? I think that in the past 30 years or more than the bench shirts and power suits have become more advanced? That would raise the records for assisted lifts. Are the raw lifts much closer to what they used to be?

Thats a huge part of who lifted gear numbers have gone up so much. Suits and shirts are getting better. I tried a 2 ply metal suit once and couldn’t physically get to parallel with 500 some odd pounds on the bar. Part of it with powerlifting too is once something becomes “possible” ie a 1000 lb deadlift, a bunch more people come along and deadlift 1000 and the glass ceiling gets lifted. Just like when they thought no one cod run a sub 5 minute mile. When someone finally did it it was only like 3 more weeks before 2 other runners managed it as well

 

[maldorf]

Thats a huge part of who lifted gear numbers have gone up so much. Suits and shirts are getting better. I tried a 2 ply metal suit once and couldn’t physically get to parallel with 500 some odd pounds on the bar

Yeah. ive read that. Im wondering now about records for raw lifts and if they have gone up a lot in the past 20 years.

 

[LATS]

There's nothing scientific to training. Use good form with control and go hard until it fatigues... then continue to keep repping lol. IMO. Look at Branch Warren for example. Theres nothing scientific to Branch's training but we can't say it ain't working! That's an extreme example but you get the idea lol

The whole "science" trend is just guys looking for an easier way out of hard work

I do agree.. but I think branches success came from doing things consistently.. and thats key.. he trained hard ( form is pathetic but it worked) he ate like crazy.. recuped.. took his compounds consistently and bingo.. he became branch warren.. he did all things CONSISTENTLY..
That being said.. he became branch in spite of himself.. and what i mean by that is gear can make up for lots of mistakes.. if you train poorly and eat consistently and take 2 to 5 grams of gear.. hgh and insulin consistently you will grow..
Gear has taken the science out of training .. it really has. It allows alot of mistakes and allows alot of variables to be off and still have some success.. old time bodybuilder Freddy oritz was giving a seminar once..he was asked what he ate.. well he didnt eat all that well .. he drank quite a bit of alcohol..etc.. the guy then asked if he took a protein powder.. Freddy said " who needs to eat and take protein shakes when you have dianabol ".. now he said it kinda tongue in cheek.. but gear does allow mistakes..
Years ago I wrote a article here titled " have we lost the science of training".. I felt that instead of talking about training variables we talked about drugs.. why? Because allowed alot of leeway in how we train.. now take drugs out of the equation and you'd see much better training and much more thought..
Now take a natural who has his training down pat.. he is cognizant of rest and recuperation.. he is technical in form .. he eats like clockwork and counts his macros.. why? Because he doesn't have room for much error.. he does this for years.. now add just a little bit of gear.. and he explodes.. now if he doesn't change anything for the next few years you will see a monster.. Because he already has all the variables in place..

 

[MasteroniPepperoni]

I do agree.. but I think branches success came from doing things consistently.. and thats key.. he trained hard ( form is pathetic but it worked) he ate like crazy.. recuped.. took his compounds consistently and bingo.. he became branch warren.. he did all things CONSISTENTLY..
That being said.. he became branch in spite of himself.. and what i mean by that is gear can make up for lots of mistakes.. if you train poorly and eat consistently and take 2 to 5 grams of gear.. hgh and insulin consistently you will grow..
Gear has taken the science out of training .. it really has. It allows alot of mistakes and allows alot of variables to be off and still have some success.. old time bodybuilder Freddy oritz was giving a seminar once..he was asked what he ate.. well he didnt eat all that well .. he drank quite a bit of alcohol..etc.. the guy then asked if he took a protein powder.. Freddy said " who needs to eat and take protein shakes when you have dianabol ".. now he said it kinda tongue in cheek.. but gear does allow mistakes..
Years ago I wrote a article here titled " have we lost the science of training".. I felt that instead of talking about training variables we talked about drugs.. why? Because allowed alot of leeway in how we train.. now take drugs out of the equation and you'd see much better training and much more thought..
Now take a natural who has his training down pat.. he is cognizant of rest and recuperation.. he is technical in form .. he eats like clockwork and counts his macros.. why? Because he doesn't have room for much error.. he does this for years.. now add just a little bit of gear.. and he explodes.. now if he doesn't change anything for the next few years you will see a monster.. Because he already has all the variables in place..

Okay, my post was a bit extreme and "all or nothing". I do agree with you too and believe training does need to be planned accordingly/analytical. Branch probably, despite his form, was probably sticking to the same rep scheme, sets, exercises and goals each session.

Still, ask any science based trainer and he will say Branch's training is not effective but Branch found what works depsite the science.

And yes, the other variables that come into play as well. Diet, nutrition, rest, etc.

About Freddy... You still believe there's some who can get away with a ton of gear and lack of all other variables and there's others' who need ALL variables?

 

[heavyhitter]

Okay, my post was a bit extreme and "all or nothing". I do agree with you too and believe training does need to be planned accordingly/analytical. Branch probably, despite his form, was probably sticking to the same rep scheme, sets, exercises and goals each session.

Still, ask any science based trainer and he will say Branch's training is not effective but Branch found what works depsite the science.

And yes, the other variables that come into play as well. Diet, nutrition, rest, etc.

About Freddy... You still believe there's some who can get away with a ton of gear and lack of all other variables and there's others' who need ALL variables?

The Science is also individual. High volume and low volume can both be the answer, set intensifiers and straight sets not to failure might both be the answer, just for different people. And sometimes a bit of both is best. What it really comes down to is trial and error and how long you’ve been in the gym to be able to tell what works for you. Clearly what Jay did worked for him, and Dorian did the opposite and it clearly worked for him.

 

[Kaladryn]

Almost all of the studies are on moderate level athletes are best, no one has studied elite level athletes or rare individuals with elite genetics- and this is where all the high levels bodybuilders are.

Even if you wanted to study these individuals, there are too many variables, no way to do controls effectively, it's not even really possible to control or trust the athletes- then throw in anabolics and you can't even ethically or legally study it.

There is a good video by Charles Poliquin where he explains how limited and bad studies on training are.

The same is true of AAS for the most part. I mean besides that one study that went up to 600mg of testosterone there have been almost no studies on AAS on higher doses of anabolics either. Everything we know is based on fragments of scientific knowledge extrapolated for the most part. This is why personal experience and anecdotal evidence mean so much.

 

[Kaladryn]

Okay, my post was a bit extreme and "all or nothing". I do agree with you too and believe training does need to be planned accordingly/analytical. Branch probably, despite his form, was probably sticking to the same rep scheme, sets, exercises and goals each session.

Still, ask any science based trainer and he will say Branch's training is not effective but Branch found what works depsite the science.

And yes, the other variables that come into play as well. Diet, nutrition, rest, etc.

About Freddy... You still believe there's some who can get away with a ton of gear and lack of all other variables and there's others' who need ALL variables?

Branch Warren has said that he doesn't think his training is the best way to train or the most effective and that he thinks he would get better results training in other ways, but he trains like he does because he likes it.

 

[LATS]

Okay, my post was a bit extreme and "all or nothing". I do agree with you too and believe training does need to be planned accordingly/analytical. Branch probably, despite his form, was probably sticking to the same rep scheme, sets, exercises and goals each session.

Still, ask any science based trainer and he will say Branch's training is not effective but Branch found what works depsite the science.

And yes, the other variables that come into play as well. Diet, nutrition, rest, etc.

About Freddy... You still believe there's some who can get away with a ton of gear and lack of all other variables and there's others' who need ALL variables?

I agree.. but what I'm saying is all training works to a extent if it's done consistently and rest and food are factored in.. but gear hgh and insulin makes a big difference.. it allows some variables to not be 100 percent for many.. now I think we both know that if branch was natural that form and high volume would not work for the vast majority..

As for freddy.. my point is if you have the genetics for this game you can get away with alot.. ill give you a example..
When I owned my gyms I had a young guy come in who just got out of prison.. 5'4 .. 175.. but tiny waist.. large muscle bellies.. look much larger than his weight would dictate.. he trained every day.. for 3 hours.. sometimes twice a day.. very strong.. piss poor form on most exercises.. his diet was atrocious.. his breakfast was a bottle of chocolate milk and powdered donuts or chocolate covered donuts.. he woukd then workout.. after three hours he woukd come to the counter and get a Blue Thunder protein drink.. he'd drink it then go home.. lunch was some fast food like a cheeseburger and a milk shake.. dinner was always a frozen pizza and lots of beer.. he drank alot. Had abs year round.. . then he woukd repeat the next day.. and this was without gear and he was the best built guy in the gym..
Now a while later he bought dbol from a guy I knew.. he bought enough for 30 mgs a day ( if I remember right) for 8 weeks.. he shot straight up to mid 190s.. and honestly the guy coukd have gone to nationals real easy and been competitive with the right guidance.. after his gear ran out you'd expect him to lose some of his new found size. But nope.. lol..
When I worked in corrections I saw guys who did nothing but makeshift exercises.. no weight room.. push-ups.. towel rows with partner.. towel curls .. bodyweight squats and hypers off the table.. they ate three shitty meals a day.. mostly carbs.. yet I saw some amazing physiques come out of that facility that would put most of us to shame.. now imagine giving them just a bit of gear.. yes genetics are a bitch and allow many of the variables to be fudged.. but if the variables are followed 100 percent truly amazing things can happen.. i.e. ronnie coleman..

 

[Dugbet]

There is nothing new under the sun, just recycling and refining the same methods.

This is what I said in another thread, and I say it again:

The most important thing is that you exercise your muscles and be constant and patient, after 3 or 4 years of diet and serious training, no exercise or training will do anything to help you grow from that point.

 

[Dugbet]

Has powerlifting records not continually been broken? In powerlifting the sport has definitely evolved, most of the guys preaching these studies are power based trainers.

Just a thought

Powerlifting are improving because there is no drug test or the drugs they use are undetectable. There are also more practitioners than ever in powerlifting.

But in weightlifting, they annulled all records to start over, because no one was breaking the old records because drug controls were too severe and athletes in those countries still used outdated drugs.

 

[Bio]

There's nothing scientific to training. Use good form with control and go hard until it fatigues... then continue to keep repping lol. IMO. Look at Branch Warren for example. Theres nothing scientific to Branch's training but we can't say it ain't working! That's an extreme example but you get the idea lol

The whole "science" trend is just guys looking for an easier way out of hard work

Try not to make absolute statements. It may be true for some but I think for most they're looking to actually enhance their training, diet, recovery and find another level. We're always looking for ways to improve and I think the thirst for knowledge is what fuels us to look in every nook and cranny for information that can get us there. Like LATS, I'm a research junkie. Lastly, and I've said this before, consistency is key.

 

[heavyhitter]

Try not to make absolute statements. It may be true for some but I think for most they're looking to actually enhance their training, diet, recovery and find another level. We're always looking for ways to improve and I think the thirst for knowledge is what fuels us to look in every nook and cranny for information that can get us there. Like LATS, I'm a research junkie. Lastly, and I've said this before, consistency is key.

Like Stan Efferding says, compliance is the science. Everything works to some degree, it’s about finding what you can do consistently day in day out for years on end

 

[salamander]

I believe we have more of a understanding on what not to do then what to do.. we see out mistakes and many studies add validity to our new understanding.. yes we have gotten bigger and stronger but I belueve much of that is a better understanding of supplementing and more yearly continued use of supplementing than actually using better training methods.. much of our training isn't much different than 30 years ago but, we have a better understanding of the importance of recuperating and rest.. so volume has lowered.. supplementing is up.. now don't get me wrong.. I read every study on hypertrophy I can find.. im a junkie but.. most are just telling us what we already have found out through trial and error

Exactly. E.g., most probably don't need huge caloric surpluses to gain optimally. Huge surpluses help but are probably inefficient.