Reason 483737 I do not like this new generation of “bodybuilding”

[iwantmass]

You just contradicted yourself again. Hiring a coach is hiring someone that does know the science…

I can't say it enough. He parrots the same old tired arguments, and thus why he is likely the most ignored active member on this forum.

The idea that someone can say we don't need more science in the sport. How do we know? It is the whole nature of science to discover. He does this on any workout, chemical, etc he doesnt agree with. And he just resolidifies his ignorance


Do we need every Joe on the net to say he is introducing a new science based approach? Probably not, because most of those guys knows as much about science as qbkilla. However, some are actually applying a scientific method to their material, and those can be enjoyable/interesting to some of us.

If the choice is to listen to big Dave or qbkilla, I don't think most of us have a hard choice

 

[Big Dave Smith]

With all due respect I find the first sentence absurd. So people not running into traffic or jumping off buildings is science based? I think all someone needs to not get injured is common sense and good judgment.

I'll counter your questions with my own. Do you consider bro science, science?

And I disagree with your 3 statements. If I want to maximize training, diet, and drug use i should not learn science...aka consuming youtube content, reading studies, or whatever time efficient method you suggest that would make such a time consuming task easier. I would hire someone reputable that has coached top level physique guys and just follow directions.

Now if you want to use semantics to say bro science, trying new things is science, we are essentially shoving everything under the umbrella of science so then the debate should be reworded to should we be tweaking variables based on studies on untrained people, 8 weeks long, that are extremely flawed as noted by researchers themselves and mocked by researchers outside the field of "exercise science ".

All due respect… this is the definition science. Science is on going, which is why it’s okay to say some old ideas are stupid, and it’s okay to experiment with new ideas. Labeling extremes to basically say “pick a side”, with one side being an unnecessarily far stretch from what can be useful, is dishonest.

You’re framing things far away from a reasonable premise.

Also, you’re 170-180lbs, yet you’re on here arguing a lot as if you have a lot of answers.

Rewording the debate to find out who’s growing muscle, who isn’t growing muscle, and what are the confounding variables… that seems more important than getting emotional about new ideas and somehow offending old dogma.

 

[Big Dave Smith]

When scientific studies incorporate already well trained individuals, in adequate sample size of them aka more than 100 subjects, that have all other variables constant (diet, drugs and rest) in multiple studies, then I will start revisiting my own training protocols that have helped me reach the muscle/strength state I am currently. Common sense, dictates that you train with progressive loads, avoiding injury aka ego lifting. The perfect leverage, producing X torque and 2 RiR BULLSHIT, can walk their puny little asses out of the room.

What is the difference between avoiding injury without ego lifting and finding perfect leverage?

Why is RIR bullshit?

Why is it so emotional?

 

[iwantmass]

What is the difference between avoiding injury without ego lifting and finding perfect leverage?

Why is RIR bullshit?

Why is it so emotional?

This is why phil hernon was so refreshing. He didnt parrot old concepts that had no appreciable scientific value: wider grip lat pulls produce wider lats. Incline for upper chest, bench for mid chest, etc. He actually understood what the muscle did in a mechanical fashion. I suspect the 2 people you just countered repeat a few of the old points im talking about

 

[GroundFloor]

It almost seems to me that the “common sense” that we have now has its own scientific roots from 10s and 100s to 1,000s of years ago.

I guess now some just don’t like “modern” science lol.

However I understand that sometimes blindly trusting any study (no matter the variables or sample size) also may be a bit extreme the other way.

 

[anarchocapitalist]

Exercise science is a lot like nutritional science, where everyone with a MD behind their name has a formula for success. Some expert discovers a mechanism leaps to a conclusion without human trials and sells a book for profit and not research purposes.

Some things that happen in a petri dish, stay in the petri dish.

And I think thats true in the gym as well. The basics like progressive overload and tension are 98% of your gains. The last two percent is perhaps playing with the stretched position, etc. It makes viral vidoes tho and puts people on the map.

I think most of the advancements in the guys from the 80's to today are nutrition and drugs. I don't think Arnolds chest would have been even bigger had he played around with new variables we have today, but I do think he would have been better with some advanced nutrition/drugs.

 

[qbkilla]

You just contradicted yourself again. Hiring a coach is hiring someone that does know the science…

So you are saying all coaches, 100 percent of them, base their coaching on studies 12 weeks long? Rather than what worked for them and their clients? That's quite the statement. Even if we made this ignorant, id say false, assumption. He said I would be better LEARNING the science. I assume that means spending time away from other things, sleep, relaxation, dare I say training, to devout x hours a week to read studies, or watch kids on YouTube talk about them.

Hiring a coach does not equal reading studies and watching you tube videos to try and optimize my approach to training,diet, and nutrition. I actually did that for a period of time, and I didn't see increase results than running DC training, a basic bro split, max OT, or mountain dog training.

Its crazy how emotionally attached a large percentage of the population is that these scholenfield studies and Chris Beardsley graphs are worth our time and following these guys is going to lean to measurable changes in body composition.

 

[alfresco]

Exercise science is a lot like nutritional science, where everyone with a MD behind their name has a formula for success. Some expert discovers a mechanism leaps to a conclusion without human trials and sells a book for profit and not research purposes.

Some things that happen in a petri dish, stay in the petri dish.

And I think thats true in the gym as well. The basics like progressive overload and tension are 98% of your gains. The last two percent is perhaps playing with the stretched position, etc. It makes viral vidoes tho and puts people on the map.

I think most of the advancements in the guys from the 80's to today are nutrition and drugs. I don't think Arnolds chest would have been even bigger had he played around with new variables we have today, but I do think he would have been better with some advanced nutrition/drugs.

Arnold. Ronnie said on a podcast / interview that Arnold would still be the greatest if he was competing today given the knowledge and access to all that is available. His opinion, so if you disagree take it up with him

As far as Arnold’s chest is concerned . . . yes, it would be bigger but everything would be bigger too.

 

[qbkilla]

I can't say it enough. He parrots the same old tired arguments, and thus why he is likely the most ignored active member on this forum.

The idea that someone can say we don't need more science in the sport. How do we know? It is the whole nature of science to discover. He does this on any workout, chemical, etc he doesnt agree with. And he just resolidifies his ignorance


Do we need every Joe on the net to say he is introducing a new science based approach? Probably not, because most of those guys knows as much about science as qbkilla. However, some are actually applying a scientific method to their material, and those can be enjoyable/interesting to some of us.

If the choice is to listen to big Dave or qbkilla, I don't think most of us have a hard choice

Amazing post. When did hypertrophy become a "sport"?

Also who "knows" the science and who doesn't?.how do we measure who knows the most science and whose training is the most "scientific "? Do we measure by hours of youtube videos watched?.l listened to skip hill and dusty today when hiking, one mocked rir, should I stop listening to them?

 

[qbkilla]

All due respect… this is the definition science. Science is on going, which is why it’s okay to say some old ideas are stupid, and it’s okay to experiment with new ideas. Labeling extremes to basically say “pick a side”, with one side being an unnecessarily far stretch from what can be useful, is dishonest.

You’re framing things far away from a reasonable premise.

Also, you’re 170-180lbs, yet you’re on here arguing a lot as if you have a lot of answers.

Rewording the debate to find out who’s growing muscle, who isn’t growing muscle, and what are the confounding variables… that seems more important than getting emotional about new ideas and somehow offending old dogma.

I am 170-180, 2700 calories maintains my goal weight that I prefer to be at.

I guess my counter to your last paragraph, if the researchers and inflieners are at the forefront of science, why are their physiques so subpar? Who is growing muscle and who isn't? I think there are tons of guys in gyms every day growing muscle who are either don't know the science, ignore it, or mock it.

Then we have guys who practice it like religion who don't look thry lift and think 12 percent is lean.

Perhaps we should do a scientific experiment on exercise science. Go find the 5 biggest guys in every gym and ask them what studies or researchers have helped them get to where they are at?

 

[iwantmass]

Amazing post. When did hypertrophy become a "sport"?

Also who "knows" the science and who doesn't?.how do we measure who knows the most science and whose training is the most "scientific "? Do we measure by hours of youtube videos watched?.l listened to skip hill and dusty today when hiking, one mocked rir, should I stop listening to them?

You are grasping at straws, but I expect nothing less. Bodybuilding is a sport, but you know this.

As far as the idiocy laced through the entire paragraph you wrote, that is the whole point of science and how we get new technology, etc. Its because of those that refuse to keep to the stagnant and old ideas, and see if there is a better way. Are all new ideas good? Absolutely not, but that doesnt mean we give up on idea 10001 because the previous 1000 failed. You aren't on the right side of this.

Since you act like a child, ill give you basic instruction like one. Watch/read/listen to the material thar interrest you. If it provokes a need for change in your routine, go for it. If not, don't.

 

[iwantmass]

I am 170-180, 2700 calories maintains my goal weight that I prefer to be at.

I guess my counter to your last paragraph, if the researchers and inflieners are at the forefront of science, why are their physiques so subpar? Who is growing muscle and who isn't? I think there are tons of guys in gyms every day growing muscle who are either don't know the science, ignore it, or mock it.

Then we have guys who practice it like religion who don't look thry lift and think 12 percent is lean.

Perhaps we should do a scientific experiment on exercise science. Go find the 5 biggest guys in every gym and ask them what studies or researchers have helped them get to where they are at?

I'll take this one. You could give the guy with the best genetics in the world the worst routine and he would likely still outperform the guy with the worst genetics and the best routine. It doesnt mean we still dont try to optimize routines. And who knows, maybe that guy with inferior genetics actually looks better due to his willingness to try new things. He is just likely to never overcome his inferior genetics.

As we often see with coaches across every sport, the most gifted coach is not necessarily the most gifted athlete

 

[iwantmass]

You are grasping at straws, but I expect nothing less. Bodybuilding is a sport, but you know this.

As far as the idiocy laced through the entire paragraph you wrote, that is the whole point of science and how we get new technology, etc. Its because of those that refuse to keep to the stagnant and old ideas, and see if there is a better way. Are all new ideas good? Absolutely not, but that doesnt mean we give up on idea 10001 because the previous 1000 failed. You aren't on the right side of this.

Since you act like a child, ill give you basic instruction like one. Watch/read/listen to the material thar interrest you. If it provokes a need for change in your routine, go for it. If not, don't.

And if you think science doesnt explain hypertrophy, I really dont know what to say

 

[qbkilla]

What is the difference between avoiding injury without ego lifting and finding perfect leverage?

Why is RIR bullshit?

Why is it so emotional?

I'll give my answer as an "anti science " guy.

RIR is an inferior way to train because no one can accurately guess how many reps they are away from failure, it's totally a guess, some are better or worse than others.

Therefore the best way to ensure progress workout to workout is to standardize and keep constant as many variables as possible...what Smith machine you use, what notch you put the incline bench on, range of motion, and when we end a set.

100x 10 week 1, 100x 12 week two, 100x14 week 3. If all sets are taken to failure, form and tempo are constant, I can be pretty sure I made progress.

But if those sets weren't to failure and instead I just took them to 2 rir...maybe week 2 was actually 4 rir, then week 2 was 2 rir. I made no progress. Or maybe week 1 was a true rir, so I did progress. My point? I have no idea if I made progress because I introduced a subjective variable that I can not measure.

 

[Big Dave Smith]

I am 170-180, 2700 calories maintains my goal weight that I prefer to be at.

I guess my counter to your last paragraph, if the researchers and inflieners are at the forefront of science, why are their physiques so subpar? Who is growing muscle and who isn't? I think there are tons of guys in gyms every day growing muscle who are either don't know the science, ignore it, or mock it.

Then we have guys who practice it like religion who don't look thry lift and think 12 percent is lean.

Perhaps we should do a scientific experiment on exercise science. Go find the 5 biggest guys in every gym and ask them what studies or researchers have helped them get to where they are at?

You have no counter. You’re the only one mentioning influencers, and you’re the one with a narrow minded qualification of what science is. You don’t answer any questions, and you never make a solid point. Your only goal is to argue, or at least not to lose.

All knowledge in bodybuilding is found using the scientific method. All old, current, and new. You can’t seem to detach that from social media. You also don’t seem to understand that studies are experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to collect information to see if information is even useable in the real world. The people you’re mentioning are the ones trying to see if it’s useable.

There are plenty of failed experiments in the world.

Keep arguing though. We all know you won’t stop.

 

[qbkilla]

I'll take this one. You could give the guy with the best genetics in the world the worst routine and he would likely still outperform the guy with the worst genetics and the best routine. It doesnt mean we still dont try to optimize routines. And who knows, maybe that guy with inferior genetics actually looks better due to his willingness to try new things. He is just likely to never overcome his inferior genetics.

As we often see with coaches across every sport, the most gifted coach is not necessarily the most gifted athlete

I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But it doesn't discredit my main point...that these studies we are hearing about so much in the past 5 years are not benefiting us. Genetics will always be a confounding variable and both sides can use it to try and prove their argument.

 

[qbkilla]

You have no counter. You’re the only one mentioning influencers, and you’re the one with a narrow minded qualification of what science is. You don’t answer any questions, and you never make a solid point. Your only goal is to argue, or at least not to lose.

All knowledge in bodybuilding is found using the scientific method. All old, current, and new. You can’t seem to detach that from social media. You also don’t seem to understand that studies are experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to collect information to see if information is even useable in the real world. The people you’re mentioning are the ones trying to see if it’s useable.

There are plenty of failed experiments in the world.

Keep arguing though. We all know you won’t stop.

I actually don't care to argue, I think the last time we had this debate I stopped replying, because how much time do we want to really spend discussing this when neither of us will change our mind and we aren't even debating the same thing from what I can tell...

You are lumping everything under the umbrella of "science ' to where what people typically refer to as "bro science '" is labeled by you as "science ' because it is trial and error.

Where I am referring to the increased credibility in recent years to studies on untrained people as 'science ".

Its almost like if I touch a hot pan, it hurts, so I don't do it again. I call that "common sense". You would call it trial and error therefore science?

The content people are consuming now days is about studies in a lab, this is what MOST, I assume, are referring to as science. Not the basics that we have known forever such as bench press trains chest and not calves.

 

[qbkilla]

And if you think science doesnt explain hypertrophy, I really dont know what to say

I was referring to you calling hypertrophy a sport. Science explains to is how eating a large quantity of food makes us no longer hungry, but do toddlers need to learn about science before they know to eat food?

 

[workingclass]

when it comes to the hardcore vs science based argument

I always think of ben pakulski and watching him training for the olympia with all the exercise scientist around him and coaching him through sessions while he was hooked up to all these different machines and monitors. I don't think he broke the top 10 that year. I just remember that he didn't win

dude had an amazing physique, shit he was an olympia competitor and that speaks for itself in my mind

come to think of it idk anyone who was that science based that ever won - not being funny here at all

branch was a hardcore guy and he placed 2nd to jay

the guys that everyone remembers seemed to have trained insanely hard and heavy

anecdotally - some of the biggest and most developed dudes I've ever met didn't seem to put a ton of thought into things

is form and technique considered science? if so it all has it's place

it does get frustrating when ppl ask me questions and I answer them but then they tell me about the science behind things... my head hurts because sometimes shit just ain't that deep

sometimes it's best to just pick things up and put them down

 

[iwantmass]

I was referring to you calling hypertrophy a sport. Science explains to is how eating a large quantity of food makes us no longer hungry, but do toddlers need to learn about science before they know to eat food?

They can learn the right things to eat......jeez you are special, and not in a good way. As to Dave's point, you just like to argue, and as terrible as you are at it; I dare say you take some masochist pain in losing.