MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
State of Exercise Science 2017
First | Prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18
Author
Rating
Options

sirloin

Average Al wrote:
sirloin wrote:

I also like a bit of pinch of evidence with my science, example: the Nautilus North training freqency study ...




If your idea of good science is a Nautilus North study, then you have good reason to be disillusioned.


No its not, youve missed the point

Open User Options Menu

sirloin

Average Al wrote:
Crotalus wrote:
sirloin wrote:

Moreover, the research is in many cases poorly conducted or too short etc, theres also lieing and cheating that goes on, overstated findings .



That's my problem with 'scientific studies' no matter what's its about. They do 'studies' for one reason and that is to get you to believe what they want you to believe, for whatever reason that is and usually it's money ... like funding for the next 'study'.

Lying and cheating ??? Hell yeah it goes on all the time. For some reason these scientists are regarded as above all that , honest and and report only the real results and truth.

LOL, yeah right. When they do a study on lying and cheating scientists , that will be one I'll take the time to read ... even though that will be full of shit as well but entertaining to read.


So science, and particularly the way science funding works these days, has some flaws. Do you have a better way to generate knowledge about how the world works? Would you rather get your facts from politicians, media talk show hosts, televangelists, and Joe Weider? When you get sick, do you go to a Doctor or a faith healer?

Most of you guys are walking around with phones that are more powerful computers than what was used to build the first A-bomb or send the first humans to the moon. When I started out as an engineer, I learned to use a slide rule and had a book of tables to calculate logarithms and trig functions. Now I can (probably) just ask Siri. 100 years ago, a knee or hip injury often became a permanent limp or even disability. Now people get new joints popped in routinely. In another 20 or 30 years, you probably won't even be allowed to drive a car, because the car will be a better and safer driver. Where the heck do you think stuff like this comes from? It isn't from magical incantations or magical thinking.



With regards to the lieing and cheating that goes on, Dr Darden said the very same thing in his 21convention BBT talk.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

That was an extremely eloquent statement, Al. Well done.

I have three big beefs with many (if not most) studies:

1. They are often done with insufficient, or at best, poorly designed control groups. They are often not comparable to the focus group, and thus, the outcome of the study is unfairly leveraged from the get-go.

2. They are almost never conducted for a sufficient time period to get meaningful results. A good example are the studies that "demonstrated" (not) that caffeine is a diuretic:

If you give a group of people more caffeine than they're used to, then of course they are going to pee a lot more. But a long-term caffeine addict like myself can tell you that I pee no more frequently than anyone else. In other words, the effect subsides with chronic use.

3. When 'scientists' have an agenda --- whether that be to discredit a rival or move a product --- the product or outcome is tainted before the study is even out of the gate. These people are the ones who may even deliberately stunt the prospects of the control groups as mentioned in #1.

Do I have a solution, you ask? The problems of funding and the advisarial nature of current academic and grant-based arenas are not going to go away.

Perhaps peer review before the study is conducted, and not just afterwards, would be one improvement that could be instituted. But of course the grant boards are supposed to be this pre-review and we see how that's working, right?

Other than that, I got nothin'!

We would seem to have take each of these on a case-by-case basis and tear them apart to find any kernels of truth hiding inside.

Best Regards,
Scott
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

Al and Simon both make good points but I still go with Simon's views .

Studies are to get you to believe what they want you to believe , not to present the truth ... and like everything else , it goes back to money ; selling shit ... books, methods, products , or getting funds for the next 'study'.

I was involved in a wildlife population study many years ago. After a season one snake in particular was obviously in very good status . When I expressed how pleased I was about this to the person running things he agreed but added that that info can not go into the seasons report or it would cut the chances of receiving funds for the next season.

I was as naive as hell at the time and shocked that a educated, professional zoologist would be so crooked. LOL, one of my first
WAKE THE FUCK UP - welcome to the REAL WORLD experiences.

Of course I found out later the same shit happens in every field , every day ... not a fucking thing is really 'honest' anymore.

Open User Options Menu

sirloin

simon-hecubus wrote:
That was an extremely eloquent statement, Al. Well done.

I have three big beefs with many (if not most) studies:

1. They are often done with insufficient, or at best, poorly designed control groups. They are often not comparable to the focus group and the outcome of the study is unfairly leveraged from the get-go.

2. They are almost never conducted for a sufficient time period to get meaningful results. The studies that "demonstrated" (not) that caffeine is a diuretic are a good example.

If you give a group of people more caffeine than they're used to, then of course they ware going to pee a lot more. But long-term caffeine addicts like myself can tell you that I pee no more frequently than anyone else. In other word, the effect subsides with chronic use.

3. When 'scientists' have an agenda, whether that be to discredit a rival or move a product. The product is tainted before the study is even out of the gate. These people are the ones who may even deliberately stunt the prospects of the groups as mentioned in #1.

Do I have a solution, you ask? The problems of funding and the advisarial nature of current academic and grant-based arenas is not going to go away.

I guess peer review before the study is conducted, and not just afterwards, would be one improvement that could be instituted.

Other than that, I got nothin'! We would seem to have take each of these on a case-by-case basis and tear them apart to find any kernels of truth hiding inside.

Best Regards,
Scott


Agreed.
Open User Options Menu

S.M.Punisher

The government being in science doesn't mean good science can't be and isn't being done; it just takes longer for truth to establish itself, which is often in shining light on government-funded scams.
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

S.M.Punisher wrote:
The government being in science doesn't mean good science can't be and isn't being done; it just takes longer for truth to establish itself, which is often in shining light on government-funded scams.


LOL, those illustrations state the truth, unfortunately .
Open User Options Menu

Grant D.

Why I Use OMEGA Set (sparingly)

I wanted to share why I use an Omega Set rarely for a few reasons . . .
a) Hard to get weight into position of maximum contraction. Need assistance from a partner or another arm/leg.
b) very easy to overtrain as the weight load is so immense in a full contraction that much muscle inroad is achievable. It is so much isolated load that one does not expect to have an extended recovery time, and it could easily exceed that of the rest of your session exercises.
c) Not easy to measure TUL since it is so short (temporaly and dimensionaly).
d) not easy to lower weight in control (without help)

But it does create an intense inroad if focused, and is very safe as movement is zero
Open User Options Menu

Lioncourt

simon-hecubus wrote:
3. When 'scientists' have an agenda --- whether that be to discredit a rival or move a product --- the product or outcome is tainted before the study is even out of the gate. These people are the ones who may even deliberately stunt the prospects of the control groups as mentioned in #1.


Along these same lines is my problem with the volume studies you see comparing 1-2 sets vs. multiple sets. Most of these people using the HIT protocol are new to it and as most of us here know being able to reach true failure takes practice on your own. If you're a scientist with an agenda to prove you need more volume to grow, you're likely not going to force the participants to really hit those last few reps when they think they are at failure. It would be even worse if it is a grad assistant coaching them and not even the primary researcher themselves.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18
Administrators Online: Mod Jump'n Jack
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy