some of those front page articles are such bullshit. 4 weeks to a bigger chest. i see guys just busting their ass at the gym, doing similar training this article says to do, and they sure as hell aint any bigger. 50/50 on these front page articles. some are just bullshit, some are ok…
At your age i am surprised you did not figure it out yet.
If i buy a Nike product i pay for the free tennis on TV.
If i buy Scotties for free curling.
Here we get some quality information, and stuff to sell.
Progress slower than you expect, buy supplements to correct your situation.
It is a fair deal.
oh, i figured it out years ago… lol!!!i just wonder why they print such bullshit… whay such bullshit is allowed… some frontpage articles on training are very good, but the ones that tell you you to do this and you’ll get huge in a few weeks are so full of crap… why do they even print these?? what idiot actually believes this crap?? i wish they would do away withh the bullshit articles, and put legit info on the front page…i bet if the owner of this site got rid of all these shit articles like these, and put up more legit articles, he would have more viewers…maybe i’ll write an article on “follow my cycling training plan for 4 weeks, and in that time you’ll be racing the tour de france” … lol!!
You don’t know what the guys in the gym are doing out of the gym though. Most of the gains you get are from what you are doing outside the gym.
The guys training their ass off doing 10 variations of bench press and pull ups might be eating bugger all, or going out and drinking/doing drugs and not sleeping all weekend.
But I agree, some articles are a bit on the silly side but I think you need to take “getting huge in four weeks” with a grain of salt. The author is probably meaning relative gains to what you would get otherwise.
That’s why I read as much as possible so I can filter the rubbish!
Tell me what guy is going to read an article with the title “6 months to a chest that has visibly improved a little, but still needs work” ? Seriously, what the hell. Quit bitching. It’s basic marketing, it happens universally in almost every outlet except for science journals: tv, print, online, billboards, email spam. it’s no worse than every other outlet. Th only difference is you get to bitch about it on THEIR forums and they let you.
Seriously. Are some of the marketing statements hyperbole? Um…yeah. Hyperbole and marketing are practically synonymous in any market. I dont care if it’s cars or alcohol or crossfit.
[quote]Kirks wrote:The author is probably meaning relative gains to what you would get otherwise.
Just a side note on this point, I’ve read in a few of the comments sections that things like the title and pictures are often chosen by the editors, not the authors. Generally after someone has slammed the author for choosing such a ridiculous title/pictures.
Edit: E.g. Dan John’s comment here:
i see guys just busting their ass at the gym, doing similar training this article says to do, and they sure as hell aint any bigger. [/quote]
What you just did was use hyperbole to emphasize your underlying point. In truth, there’s a tiny, tiny, tiny chance that many guys in your gym are “doing similar training” to the article you’re criticizing. They might train chest three days a week, but odds are that’s where the similarities end. Not sure why you’re bringing up this example other than to downplay the coach’s actual advice.
Anyhow, as was mentioned, hyperbole and eye-catching/interest-piquing titles are very common tools used in writing. They’re rarely, if ever intended to be literal. However, in this particular case, it can be considered accurate. Article title: “4 weeks to a bigger chest.” Article content: periodized training to prioritize chest strength and size while addressing shoulder/upper back health. After 4 weeks/16 workouts, provided nutrition has been appropriate, chest/torso measurements will have increased.
Just a few months ago, in the last thread you started, you said the articles were fine but complained about the pictures. It hurts me that we keep disappointing you. Truly.
And I bet if the owner of this site took any of your advice about the quality of content, we’d be out of business by the end of the year. Seriously, I don’t know why you’re still here when it’s clear you’re not exactly at the peak of the target audience bell curve.
I’ve read in a few of the comments sections that things like the title and pictures are often chosen by the editors, not the authors.[/quote]
This is correct and has never been hidden, and it’s standard practice in the overwhelming majority of publications, online or off.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Just a few months ago, in the last thread you started, you said the articles were fine but complained about the pictures. It hurts me that we keep disappointing you. Truly.[/quote]
Someone get this guy a tissue.
I’ve found tons of gems within the articles and from authors on this site. I havent come across many sites that provide as much free and valuable information as T-Nation. I would rather thank them for all the free stuff than whine because they arent all up to your expectations.
“6 months to a chest that has visibly improved a little, but still needs work” ? .[/quote]
That was actually the working title!
some of those front page articles are such bullshit. 4 weeks to a bigger chest. i see guys just busting their ass at the gym, doing similar training this article says to do, and they sure as hell aint any bigger. 50/50 on these front page articles. some are just bullshit, some are ok…[/quote]
Your profile shows you’ve been visiting this site since 2010 (if not earlier) so I’m a little surprised by your comments.
It’s true that most of the front page articles are, at best, mediocre. However, keep in mind that what keeps T-Nation in business is selling supplements and training equipment. The free articles bring traffic to the site. And don’t forget that truly unique and brilliant ideas are rare indeed.
So, Aragorn is correct in the marketing aspect. The fact is, most people do NOT become giddy by such titles as “Vladimir Zatsiorsky’s Training Methodology Revisited” or something along those lines. In order to attract the highest number of traffic to this site, the titles need to create buzz. It is unfortunate that this buzz is often created with less-than-impressive content.
I actually have been a reader of this site since its early days when Poliquin and Ian King were still regular contributors. Furthermore, despite my profile showing a “0” (indicating that I have not made any purchase from T-Nation), I actually was a consistent buyer (I created a new profile at a later time, 56x11). Since then, I’ve found more cost-effective solutions for such products as protein powders. And I did get burned by a now-discontinued product that helps “create that bridge from bulking to cutting” (live and learn…).
I now categorize the authors on a scale from ‘must reads’ (TC, Tate, Meadows, Shelby, Dr Clay) to ‘what-the-hell-I’ve-got-time to kill’ to ‘good-lord-this-idiot-again?’ Obviously, those in the third category do not receive a minute of my time.
And if there is a new author, I will give them every chance to enlighten me. If I am unimpressed, then so be it. If I think author’s stance is completely off base to the point of being moronic, I will (as tactfully as possible) disagree in the live spill, maybe make a rebuttal or two, and move on.
The owners of T-Nation know the forums are also a good way to generate traffic - even though many of the posters are worthless; T-Nation is smart enough to take the good with the bad because it’s the nature of internet forums and more traffic is still favorable to no traffic.
So take the front page articles with a grain of salt, try to make positive contributions to the forum (your experience in road cycling will be appreciated), and take the good with the bad.
I don’t read the articles that don’t appeal to me, and bookmark the ones that do. I suggest you do the same. Every article is going to help someone.
I usually just stick with whatever Jim Wendler , Dan Johm , and Martin Rooney write. You can choose what not to read follow, thats what I like about this site noone forces you to “drink the koolaid” you can choose to follow and do whatever you want with the information and articles put out.
I think most of the articles are great. I wish they had more articles on strength and athletic performance, as this site has become more bodybuilding focused, but I haven’t found another site which regularly publishes good articles. Does anybody have any suggestions?
I think most of the articles are great. I wish they had more articles on strength and athletic performance, as this site has become more bodybuilding focused, but I haven’t found another site which regularly publishes good articles. Does anybody have any suggestions?[/quote]
Go directly to the original source. In an earlier post, I facetiously mentioned Zatsiorsky. However, his theories are pretty damn impressive stuff. Also, to this day, I credit Verkhoshansky’s complex training methodologies as a major component of my getting stronger every year. I simply take his principles and add my variations on the strength/power movements to fit my needs.
The more you study the classics, the more you’ll realize how much of the supposedly “cutting edge” articles out there are little more than reiterations with window dressing.
Of course, every once in a while, someone will shed some interesting light on a subject. So it’s good to keep an open mind - just know that you will have to endure a ton of manure to find a speck of gold.