Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
JollyRogers
New member
technology = lazyness for some (most)
cars
tv
too many to list..
cars
tv
too many to list..
Question for VET BB'ers NOT powerlifters....
- Thread starter drveejay11
- Start date
collegiateLifter
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for VET BB'ers NOT powerlifters....
ok, i could answer either debaser of guld's post, but it seems to me that guld has incorporates along similar ideas, but i'll bite gulds'.
In regard's to casual's studies, i did a search on pubmed but didn't find them. Assuming that they had large enough sample sizes, were conducted properly, etc. they still don't show much of anything. All that they suggest is that for that type of training for those kind of 'experienced' subjects, that low vol may be comparable to high vol. What i've read sugests nothing about whether or not the excercises were done submaximally or to failure, nor rest periods, nor motivation and emotional excitement level of the trainees. All of these have a huge effect on the response to training, and are huge, overlooked confounding variables. HUGE. Furthermore, being trained suggests nothing about their fitness, or preperation level, not to mention a horde of other factors including, dietary intake, rest, stress, etc.
And even moreso, this study certainly doesn't rule out another form of high set training benefitting a certain group of indivuals even more so than either of the two protocols above.
anyway, onward we go.
Practical advice is very good though, but certainly doesn't prove anything....Also, if you look at very high level athletes with very high levels of preparation, and tolerance to excercise (admittedly not me), I am just not convinced that single sets are as good as multiple sets.
OK so we're onto the practical side....
The problem is, we don't know what the ideal training formula for gaining mass for a given individual is. WE DONT KNOW. So in order to present a case i had to bounce between the way to prove something correctly, and what little real world knowledge we have, which is definately inadequate to prove anything, really. But at this point do i fold? or do i try however deplorably unscientifically, to show something? My aim was to cast doubt upon the idea that one (to 3) set(s) is best for all, a one size fits all method, that debaser infferred in his first post.
The reason i state i that i like DC method at the begginning of my post, is that i think his methodology may be extremely beneficial to ideal for many if not most, but this certainly doesn't include all athletes lookin to gain mass.
My reason to include power atheletes is because at the olympic level, i reason that the most qualified coaching and observations have taken place over the past several decades, mostly so in the eastern bloc. Bodybuilding is extremely far behind most of these sports on a knowledge level, i contend; BBing's acceptance of the supercomensation theory over Dual factor is symptomatic of this, i contend as well.
Next i'll quote straight outta Science and Practice, as I am now home from school, and have access to it once again.
Zatsiorsky says, "While muscle hypertrophy is a primary goal of body builders, athletes do not typically aim at increasing muscle mass. However, muscle hypertrophy is an important way to increase muscle strength. Furthermore some athletes (linemen in football, throwers) are able to use heavy bodyweight to their advantage and thus want to increase muscle mass."
So from here i reason that if hypertrophy is important for these high level atheletes like throwers, and undoubtably superheavy weightlifters, then coaches would wish to find an optimal approach to achieving hypertrophy.
Now these power athletes have used multiple set protocols to increase muscle mass. I cannot surely induct from this that low vol is not good for them as i can't say for sure what their results were with them, but as a compromise given the fact that we are workin in the real world, i try to induct a conclucsion that atleast casts large doubt on the idea of a one size fits all, low volume, method for any given trainer looking to gain size. Additionally i was not reffering to skill training at all, as the assistance excercises i am reffering to are trained at the submaximal/rep method level, which is deemed optimal at building hypertrophy, not intra or intermuscular coordination. That is, i was examining the hypertrophy training that these athletes do as an adjunct to skill training.
What i was saying was again reffering to the intial base of using a study as a start to prove something. You have 2 dif groups, having the null and alternative hypothesis. The null states that the result will be equal for each group. The alternative always tries to show some difference. You cannot ever find evidence for the null hypothesis, only evidence against it, or nothing at all.
damn that was a bit too long of a post; hope i got a few points across. time to go lift.
ok, i could answer either debaser of guld's post, but it seems to me that guld has incorporates along similar ideas, but i'll bite gulds'.
In regard's to casual's studies, i did a search on pubmed but didn't find them. Assuming that they had large enough sample sizes, were conducted properly, etc. they still don't show much of anything. All that they suggest is that for that type of training for those kind of 'experienced' subjects, that low vol may be comparable to high vol. What i've read sugests nothing about whether or not the excercises were done submaximally or to failure, nor rest periods, nor motivation and emotional excitement level of the trainees. All of these have a huge effect on the response to training, and are huge, overlooked confounding variables. HUGE. Furthermore, being trained suggests nothing about their fitness, or preperation level, not to mention a horde of other factors including, dietary intake, rest, stress, etc.
And even moreso, this study certainly doesn't rule out another form of high set training benefitting a certain group of indivuals even more so than either of the two protocols above.
anyway, onward we go.
In the idea of presenting studies, as often they are cited by casual and HST alike, i was reffering to not just showing correlation as concrete but causation, which despite what some may think, is a humoungous ordeal, best shown by the decades spent on looking at cigarettes and cancer.guldukat said:
Practical advice is very good though, but certainly doesn't prove anything....Also, if you look at very high level athletes with very high levels of preparation, and tolerance to excercise (admittedly not me), I am just not convinced that single sets are as good as multiple sets.
OK so we're onto the practical side....
guldukat said:
The problem is, we don't know what the ideal training formula for gaining mass for a given individual is. WE DONT KNOW. So in order to present a case i had to bounce between the way to prove something correctly, and what little real world knowledge we have, which is definately inadequate to prove anything, really. But at this point do i fold? or do i try however deplorably unscientifically, to show something? My aim was to cast doubt upon the idea that one (to 3) set(s) is best for all, a one size fits all method, that debaser infferred in his first post.
The reason i state i that i like DC method at the begginning of my post, is that i think his methodology may be extremely beneficial to ideal for many if not most, but this certainly doesn't include all athletes lookin to gain mass.
My reason to include power atheletes is because at the olympic level, i reason that the most qualified coaching and observations have taken place over the past several decades, mostly so in the eastern bloc. Bodybuilding is extremely far behind most of these sports on a knowledge level, i contend; BBing's acceptance of the supercomensation theory over Dual factor is symptomatic of this, i contend as well.
Next i'll quote straight outta Science and Practice, as I am now home from school, and have access to it once again.
Zatsiorsky says, "While muscle hypertrophy is a primary goal of body builders, athletes do not typically aim at increasing muscle mass. However, muscle hypertrophy is an important way to increase muscle strength. Furthermore some athletes (linemen in football, throwers) are able to use heavy bodyweight to their advantage and thus want to increase muscle mass."
So from here i reason that if hypertrophy is important for these high level atheletes like throwers, and undoubtably superheavy weightlifters, then coaches would wish to find an optimal approach to achieving hypertrophy.
Now these power athletes have used multiple set protocols to increase muscle mass. I cannot surely induct from this that low vol is not good for them as i can't say for sure what their results were with them, but as a compromise given the fact that we are workin in the real world, i try to induct a conclucsion that atleast casts large doubt on the idea of a one size fits all, low volume, method for any given trainer looking to gain size. Additionally i was not reffering to skill training at all, as the assistance excercises i am reffering to are trained at the submaximal/rep method level, which is deemed optimal at building hypertrophy, not intra or intermuscular coordination. That is, i was examining the hypertrophy training that these athletes do as an adjunct to skill training.
guldukat said:
I'm a bit confused by this.
If someone set about demonstrating as much, how would showing the two are equal a potential "you can't prove a negative!" scenario?
Here again, one must define "better" as well, lest they fall prey to, ironically, the fallacies of weak induction
What i was saying was again reffering to the intial base of using a study as a start to prove something. You have 2 dif groups, having the null and alternative hypothesis. The null states that the result will be equal for each group. The alternative always tries to show some difference. You cannot ever find evidence for the null hypothesis, only evidence against it, or nothing at all.
damn that was a bit too long of a post; hope i got a few points across. time to go lift.
SofaGeorge
New member
Trivia...
The reason we have PE classes in high schools was that during World War II (or was it the Korean War?) when they started drafting soldiers... the military was shocked by how many people were in horrible condition... not fit to be soldiers... so they institued PE in schools to get teh nation in better shape should we ever have to call up another draft.
That's also why the President's Office of Physical Fitness was formed.
The reason we have PE classes in high schools was that during World War II (or was it the Korean War?) when they started drafting soldiers... the military was shocked by how many people were in horrible condition... not fit to be soldiers... so they institued PE in schools to get teh nation in better shape should we ever have to call up another draft.
That's also why the President's Office of Physical Fitness was formed.
I definitely agree. It's difficult to show causation. One point I do want to make though, such as in presenting the study showing increased frequency leads to better strength and mass gains -- even if that does fail to show causation, which it may because in that study I think they were new lifters, that there is NO SUCH STUDY showing that once/week is better.
I think we need to accept potentially questionable research over zero research.
Very much agree. Go dual-factor theory.
Actually we do. The best way to grow a muscle is to load it continuously for up to weeks. When they do that in animals, musles will literally double their size and weight within the timeframe of the study. Now that's quite impractical. Generally, more volume = higher gains. But it reaches a limit very quickly. Now I'm not saying anything about strength training; I don't know nearly as much about that. I'd say for strength athletes that higher volume is a good thing as strength is more related to fatigue and neural effects.
-casual
Similar threads
