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
New Weight Training Science
Author
Rating
Options

Mostly Dead

Let me open by saying this is not directed at anyone here but is a observation of the exercise industry.

I always look for new studies, that conclusively prove or disprove, conventional weight training methods.

I haven't made an exhaustive study but I do keep an eye on this area of interest and haven't seen anything new or conclusive in decades.

For all the discussions of advancement, weight training is the same as it was 100 years ago, excluding the new machines which may be safer but not more effective. Being able to explain what is occurring in a muscle or at a cellular level during training hasn't made weight training better. Secondly, being able to explain how a combustion engine works doesn't make one a better driver.

Recycling the same old ideas with a new twist, that may or may not be productive, is hardly new science or even new (most new protocols offered can be found decades ago).

Any argument that ignores the whole and offers details on specifics, that may or may not be true, is never ending and incredibly tiresome conjecture on which the exercise industry is built.

mostly
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Mostly Dead wrote:
Let me open by saying this is not directed at anyone here but is a observation of the exercise industry.

I always look for new studies, that conclusively prove or disprove, conventional weight training methods.

I haven't made an exhaustive study but I do keep an eye on this area of interest and haven't seen anything new or conclusive in decades.

For all the discussions of advancement, weight training is the same as it was 100 years ago, excluding the new machines which may be safer but not more effective. Being able to explain what is occurring in a muscle or at a cellular level during training hasn't made weight training better. Secondly, being able to explain how a combustion engine works doesn't make one a better driver.

Recycling the same old ideas with a new twist, that may or may not be productive, is hardly new science or even new (most new protocols offered can be found decades ago).

Any argument that ignores the whole and offers details on specifics, that may or may not be true, is never ending and incredibly tiresome conjecture on which the exercise industry is built.

mostly


No real surprise: understanding how the body works does not change the way it responds to training. However, biochemists have applied that understanding to produce synthetic hormones that can be used to alter the way the body responds to training. Steroids, for better or worse, have dramatically altered the training landscape. Better living through chemistry, as the old slogan goes.

The next big breakthrough? Manipulating DNA for better gains??
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

== Scott ==
It?s just st like guns, the guns of today are basically the same as one from the 1600s with a few modern updates. Pull a trigger, powder explodes and a bullet goes down the barrel. More efficient but basically the same. The automobile , is propelled by an engine or motor of some sort a rolls on 4 wheels. Now they are faster and more advanced but basically the same principle. Same goes for weight training. You move a weight up and down or side to side that works the muscle. All the studies and experiments haves changed any of this significantly. Your still just moving a heavy weight one way or another with slight improvements in usability,
Open User Options Menu

ron33

An old friend, that still trains at one of the big gym chains. Told me some guys were making big deal about new routine . He watched their workout some , and finally told them we were training that way 30-40 yrs. ago . He said was basic super set routine , and they would nt believe him and got pissed off ? Yes I know its better to be pissed off, than pissed on ...
Open User Options Menu

sgb2112

Here is some scientific training.

https://youtu.be/85CIoZaXwW4
Open User Options Menu

Gainz

sgb2112 wrote:
Here is some scientific training.

https://youtu.be/...oZaXwW4


Here's Lee Priest doing a pretty good parody of that vid

https://youtu.be/zP5kgsMP-IE
Open User Options Menu

1958

Texas, USA

sgb2112 wrote:
Here is some scientific training.

https://youtu.be/...oZaXwW4


Low back cheat yanking,grip straps,2" ROM,and drugs! Hilarious.
Open User Options Menu

Equity

1958 wrote:
sgb2112 wrote:
Here is some scientific training.

https://youtu.be/85CIoZaXwW4

Low back cheat yanking,grip straps,2" ROM,and drugs! Hilarious.


It's like Olympic Weightlifting with machines instead of a barbell lol!!!
Open User Options Menu

Mega-duty

Dr.Brad Schoenfeld suggest high volume, at least periodically. Then Dr.Keith Baar says that one set to failure. So, it is between one to forty five sets each week. Curious to see where it leads.
I have learned some things from modern exercise science, but not much yet.
Maybe more still than from Eugen Sandow whom stuff i've been lurking recently.
Open User Options Menu

Mostly Dead

I see a trend in weight training which is using inconclusive and baseless studies as fact" to develop new methods of weight training. Others just change the name of existing training methods and bingo, a new training system is born.

Study the pre-steroid era of bodybuilding and powerlifting, this is where one can learn the most about building muscle and strength from those that experimented and learned by trial and error and not by using meaningless studies or semantics.

mostly

Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Mostly Dead wrote:
I see a trend in weight training which is using inconclusive and baseless studies as fact" to develop new methods of weight training. Others just change the name of existing training methods and bingo, a new training system is born.

Study the pre-steroid era of bodybuilding and powerlifting, this is where one can learn the most about building muscle and strength from those that experimented and learned by trial and error and not by using meaningless studies or semantics.

mostly



I don't recall reading many scientific papers which claim to have developed a new training method based on science. Blood flow restriction studies might be the only example I can think of. Negative overload studies might be another example. But even with negative emphasized training, the practice probably came before the scientific studies. (How non-scientists use the results of exercise physiology studies to promote a favored style of training is a different issue.)

Rather, most of the studies seemed aimed at trying to settle questions that have been around for awhile (to fail or not, single or multiple sets, high reps and low weight vs low reps and high weight, high frequency versus low frequency training). That no clear answers have been forthcoming may mean that these are just difficult questions to answer. Perhaps that is because there isn't uniformity in how people respond to training due to differences in genetics. Either that, or else the human body adapts so well to a lot of different kinds of stress, that the impact of different training variables is just hard to discern.

Of course, steroids compound the problem of evaluating the results we see now. To restate my previous observation: steroids were the most meaningful contribution to muscle building that science has made. You want to be as strong and muscular as possible: get on the juice! Is that healthy? That is a different question....

As for pre-steroid training methods: is there really that much uniformity in how people trained before steroids? Did Sandow have access to plate loaded barbells? Most of the pictures of gyms I see from the 1800's show a lot of Indian clubs and gymnastics equipment.

Prior to the 1940's, did people bother to bench press? Powerlifting as an organized sport only dates back to the 1960's, as far as I can tell. Olympic weight lifting is older, going back to the 1890's. I don't think people involved in those two sports train in exactly the same way.

So much depends on how far back you want to go, and what the freaks of that era were trying to accomplish with their training.

Open User Options Menu

PTDaniel

Average Al wrote:
Mostly Dead wrote:
I see a trend in weight training which is using inconclusive and baseless studies as fact" to develop new methods of weight training. Others just change the name of existing training methods and bingo, a new training system is born.

Study the pre-steroid era of bodybuilding and powerlifting, this is where one can learn the most about building muscle and strength from those that experimented and learned by trial and error and not by using meaningless studies or semantics.

mostly



I don't recall reading many scientific papers which claim to have developed a new training method based on science. Blood flow restriction studies might be the only example I can think of. Negative overload studies might be another example. But even with negative emphasized training, the practice probably came before the scientific studies. (How non-scientists use the results of exercise physiology studies to promote a favored style of training is a different issue.)

Rather, most of the studies seemed aimed at trying to settle questions that have been around for awhile (to fail or not, single or multiple sets, high reps and low weight vs low reps and high weight, high frequency versus low frequency training). That no clear answers have been forthcoming may mean that these are just difficult questions to answer. Perhaps that is because there isn't uniformity in how people respond to training due to differences in genetics. Either that, or else the human body adapts so well to a lot of different kinds of stress, that the impact of different training variables is just hard to discern.

Of course, steroids compound the problem of evaluating the results we see now. To restate my previous observation: steroids were the most meaningful contribution to muscle building that science has made. You want to be as strong and muscular as possible: get on the juice! Is that healthy? That is a different question....

As for pre-steroid training methods: is there really that much uniformity in how people trained before steroids? Did Sandow have access to plate loaded barbells? Most of the pictures of gyms I see from the 1800's show a lot of Indian clubs and gymnastics equipment.

Prior to the 1940's, did people bother to bench press? Powerlifting as an organized sport only dates back to the 1960's, as far as I can tell. Olympic weight lifting is older, going back to the 1890's. I don't think people involved in those two sports train in exactly the same way.

So much depends on how far back you want to go, and what the freaks of that era were trying to accomplish with their training.



Blood Flow Restriction training has been around since the early 1970's. I think Dr. Kaatsui was one of the research pioneers. It was originally developed for paralyzed, immobilized, and movement restricted people who couldn't bear much weight or suffered from extreme atrophy. I'm not sure when it was resurrected and applied to athletes.
Open User Options Menu

Mega-duty

Sandow had access to a solid barbell, ball shaped weights at each end.
If i understand correctly he trained mostly with light dumbbells, one set and lots of reps. His lying two dumbbell pull-over is working very well for my lats, better than any other exercise. Especially if i keep dbells at v-angle.
It is also a great abdominal exercise, something that really works.
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

Mega-duty wrote:
His lying two dumbbell pull-over is working very well for my lats, better than any other exercise.


Are you lying across the bench and going for a deep stretch or just a lot of reps ?
Open User Options Menu

S.M.Punisher

When a muscle is made to do something it has not done before it grows, until it cannot any longer. Returns are rapidly diminishing from each new stimulus. The end.
Open User Options Menu

Mega-duty

Crotalus wrote:
Mega-duty wrote:
His lying two dumbbell pull-over is working very well for my lats, better than any other exercise.

Are you lying across the bench and going for a deep stretch or just a lot of reps ?


I just lie on the bench normally, legs are straight. Then i do pull over simultaneously with sit-ups. Bench press without any arch has also nicely develop my lats recently.
Open User Options Menu

Mega-duty

S.M.Punisher wrote:
When a muscle is made to do something it has not done before it grows, until it cannot any longer. Returns are rapidly diminishing from each new stimulus. The end.


Very true, i just have a tendency to do same things over and over again. Maybe some kind of neurotic issue?
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

I always look for new studies, that conclusively prove or disprove, conventional weight training methods.

==Scott=
That's a good one. For every study that proves something there's a study to prove the opposite.I'm sure there is a study that proves blue is a better color than green.
Open User Options Menu

Mostly Dead

Ents/Scott,

I couldn't agree more.

Using study groups that are too small, inconsistent and non existent controls, false or non existent baselines, using the semantics dance to prove a hypothesis or theory, and all the other dirty little tricks modern "scientists" use to prove their point.

Worst of all they take this information and use it as "fact" and design/build exercise systems/routines that are "superior" to any existing and expect trainees to buy it wholesale.

mostly
Open User Options Menu
Administrators Online: Mod Jump'n Jack
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy