Scientific Evaluation

USAMMAFAN · 05-04-2006, 11:56 PM

According to scientists "the preponderance of research strongly suggests that gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance are the result of the following [among others] simple guidelines"

Carpinelli et. al. 2004)

* A range of repetitions between three and 15
* One set of each exercise
* After performing a combination of concentric and eccentric muscle actions, working to momentary muscular failure is recommended as this will force the muscle to adapt to the stress more quickly.
* Enough time between exercises to perform the next exercise in proper form.
* Depending on individual recovery and response, a frequency of 2-3 times/week to stimulate each targeted muscle group.

http://asep.org/jeponline/issue/Doc/June2004/OttoV4.pdf

**Urban** · 05-05-2006, 12:28 AM

I'm not sure how much of this you expect me to actually read. I got through the introduction and felt like it was garbage. It's an attack on ACSM protocols (something I don't use and could tell you are a bunch of bullshit just by looking at them). It says that there is no evidence to indicated a different routine for novice, intermediate, advanced, and elite lifters, which is bullshit. And since the publication of this ****study/criticism there are several other studies (one was just in a t-mag article earlier this week) that contraindicate training to failure.

I get the feeling the ASEP either competes with or simply doesn't like the ACSM on some level, because this reads like an attack in a court case. It places the burdon of proof on the ACSM, and really doesn't give them a fair chance to defend themselves...

Personally I think this is a bunch of horse shit either way. I don't train the way outlined in this article OR in the way outlined by the ACSM's Position Stand. They're both garbage. Furthermore, as you read, this study cites other studies which ARE no doubt biased and not performed by independent sources. It's silly.

Lift heavy, play with your reps, strive for progress regularly, and you'll realize quickly exactly how fucking ridiculous these labcoat lifting reccomendations are. Fucking absurd.

**Urban** · 05-05-2006, 12:37 AM

no, reading their reccomendations I realise this is just fucked. Just in the last couple day's I've come across people citing studies that are too the contrary of what they reccomend and why.... Fucking stupid. Also, there's an awful lot of studies on untrained people being cited which is a mistake if you're trying to prove any point. Also, in the conclusion they cite a study that is supposed to lead you to some conclusion about genetic predisposition, but diet and nutrition are never mentioned and the sample group is too small for it to have NOT been considered a factor.

This whole thing reaks of bullshit. Was the ACSM PS a good standard? Fuck no. But do elite athletes need to spend more time training than novices? ARE YOU FUCKING NUTS?! Of course they do! No evidence to support that you get a better workout from freeweights? Are you fucking stupid?! no differences in rep ranges or time under tension for different goals?! this whole thing is dumb. This scientific evaluation isn't worth the bandwidth it consumes.

Keith Wassung · 05-05-2006, 06:54 AM

I have a background in writing research articles ( have authored or co-authored over 100) I dont say that to impress, but just to give you a basis of where I am coming from. I have been reading science as it relates to strength and such for many, many years. I have never read one single thing that in any way changed or altered my approach to training. I have read some things that have sort of confirmed or validated what I am doing, but I have never read anything that really added to my routine. Science does a much better job at explaining why things happened, then in predicting why they will happen. Using empirical evidence, observation, feedback, and a training journal have always trumped science articles--that is just me-not judging or putting down those who place a high value on such things. I just think its easy to get caught up in "a new scientific study is going to give me all the answers" chances are it will not. When you are studying human beings, there are SO many factors that are nearly impossible to control and affect the outcome.

just my 2 cents

Keith

ENTROPY · 05-05-2006, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Wassung

I have a background in writing research articles ( have authored or co-authored over 100) I dont say that to impress, but just to give you a basis of where I am coming from. I have been reading science as it relates to strength and such for many, many years. I have never read one single thing that in any way changed or altered my approach to training. I have read some things that have sort of confirmed or validated what I am doing, but I have never read anything that really added to my routine. Science does a much better job at explaining why things happened, then in predicting why they will happen. Using empirical evidence, observation, feedback, and a training journal have always trumped science articles--that is just me-not judging or putting down those who place a high value on such things. I just think its easy to get caught up in "a new scientific study is going to give me all the answers" chances are it will not. When you are studying human beings, there are SO many factors that are nearly impossible to control and affect the outcome.

just my 2 cents

Keith

Excellent post!!!

Steve Oly · 05-05-2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Wassung

I have a background in writing research articles ( have authored or co-authored over 100) I dont say that to impress, but just to give you a basis of where I am coming from. I have been reading science as it relates to strength and such for many, many years. I have never read one single thing that in any way changed or altered my approach to training. I have read some things that have sort of confirmed or validated what I am doing, but I have never read anything that really added to my routine. Science does a much better job at explaining why things happened, then in predicting why they will happen. Using empirical evidence, observation, feedback, and a training journal have always trumped science articles--that is just me-not judging or putting down those who place a high value on such things. I just think its easy to get caught up in "a new scientific study is going to give me all the answers" chances are it will not. When you are studying human beings, there are SO many factors that are nearly impossible to control and affect the outcome.

just my 2 cents

Keith

Thank you Keith. I second Entropy in saying EXCELLENT POST!!! I have said it before but it means more coming from somebody with your credentials, not only in your professional life but your credentials in the gym also. You're a great asset to this board man. Thanks for adding your "2 cents"!

Rjkd12 · 05-05-2006, 03:34 PM

I think its hard to scientifically prove something that has so many different confounding variables like "routine A is better than routine B." Since to have a good experiment, you need to have everything the same except one variable, and sometimes by having everything but that one variable the same you are negating any chances of finding scientific signifiance.

Also, there are limitations in the range of the study. Lets say you have a routine that will give 10% better results in a year than another routine. That is a large difference. But there is a natural variability in the genetics of the subjects, variation in their exertion (failure means different things to different people), variation in their ability to adhere to the rules, and probably a hundred other variables. Then, you can probably put them on a 12 week training schedule at most, and you are supposed to see a 10% increase with a P<0.5 with all of the error and variation? Probably not.

Also, sometimes the making everything equal makes it wrong. I read a study recently that looked into the strength gains of bands in powerlifting. They found no difference, but there were flaws IMO. First, they made the total volume of work the same between the two groups (bands and no bands). This is problem because bands are supposed to increase the volume of work. Also, it was a short training cycle with normally active college students. This is also bad because I have read that one of the big benefits of bands/chains are that they allow you to break through platues and whatnot.

Basically, what I'm saying is, just because something isn't "significantly different" doesn't mean there is no difference. Also, the nature of science makes it hard to find minute differences in certain areas. You need to know who to talk to. Does glutamine work? I'd like to see some scientific evidence (imo, this is easy to look for). Whats better, 3 reps or 5? Whats better, open guard or closed? I'd prefer to speak to top ranking athletes for those questions.

Rjkd12 · 05-05-2006, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Wassung

Science does a much better job at explaining why things happened, then in predicting why they will happen.

I only kinda agree with you here. I think it is MUCH easier to look back in retrospect and explain how things happen. Only after you COMPLETELY understand something can you predict the future. Therefore, yes, science does a much better job of explaining why things happen, just because of the nature of how the world works. Here is an explanation.

Take a tornado for example. We don't completely understand tornado's and we cannot predict when they will come. This is a huge deal. We can explain exactly how tornado's work, and what causes them (in hindsight), but until we know everything we will not be able to predict the future. As time goes on, we'll be able to predic them earlier and earlier (which is currently happening). There is a great deal of understanding of cosmology and we can predict when and where the planets will be, and when phenomenon like eclipses will appear. This is just because of our superior knoweldge of cosmology than climatology.

My point is, science is still in the process of understanding how things are working in regards to athletes. Nobody even knows why muscles hypertrophy (like the signaling cascade), or even exactly what goes on (hypertrophy vs. hyperplasia).

I only bring this up because your sentence makes science seem faulty, when, IMO its not.

Keith Wassung · 05-05-2006, 04:37 PM

I see two problems with the modern scientific method

1) Scientists spend a lot of time and lot of money trying to discover things that could be figured out just as easily--if not more accurately through observation, experience and empirical evidence

2) Studying things costs money, lots of money, and that money virtually always comes from someone who has has a vested interest in the outcome, so the scientists ( often un-intentionally) find whatever they are supposed to find or whatever they are paid to find.

Ted-P · 05-05-2006, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Wassung

observation, experience and empirical evidence

What......... you think that's not what scientists do when conducting scientific studies?

That's what science is based on.

Plus I dont think we have enough scientific experience to comment on how wasteful and inefficient scientific studies are these days unless you self are a researcher.

In the end, it's all relative though.