T Nation

New Ideas in Training/S+C

So how do we come up with new ideas if the world of strength training theory hasn’t had a paradigm shift since the 70’s? Have we come to a point where everything is figured out and all we have to do is the reading to find out what works? Or are there new theories being developed and proven everyday?

What do you guys think of Ziatsiorsky? I tried reading one of his popular books. The words were too big. I need someone to summarize it and dumb it down.

Is anyone else skeptical of the results of studies in the Journal of strength and conditioning? all of the sample sizes are too small and it seems like a lot of the studies are on stuff that we had already confirmed. I must have pissed off the NSCA and they give me phony journals because they don’t like me for having a big mouth and being unprofessional talking about studies on the internet.

The words were too big?

Stop reading the book so closely then.

One word:

Top end scientifical stuff like gene manipulation therapies to create super humans.

OK so that is more than one word, but only because there isn’t any single word for it yet.

[quote]darkhorse1-1 wrote:
So how do we come up with new ideas if the world of strength training theory hasn’t had a paradigm shift since the 70’s? Have we come to a point where everything is figured out and all we have to do is the reading to find out what works? Or are there new theories being developed and proven everyday?

What do you guys think of Ziatsiorsky? I tried reading one of his popular books. The words were too big. I need someone to summarize it and dumb it down.

Is anyone else skeptical of the results of studies in the Journal of strength and conditioning? all of the sample sizes are too small and it seems like a lot of the studies are on stuff that we had already confirmed. I must have pissed off the NSCA and they give me phony journals because they don’t like me for having a big mouth and being unprofessional talking about studies on the internet.[/quote]

Almost every science has had a point at which the people in that field thought they had “figured everything out”. They are always wrong, of course.

Back in the early 1900s, the field of physics had basically come to the conclusion that everything was figured out since they knew atom theory. Look how that worked out.

I was talking about this to a fellow class mate earlier today. I think there are new methods/ways out there to discover, it’s just there aren’t that many people that are actually interested/have the resources to go after them and invest their time and money into discovering them.

Training: probably
Doping: nope
Understanding why stuff works the way it does: not even close

How many innovations have actually come from research in a lab as opposed to guys just going into the gym and lifting weights?

[quote]jldume wrote:
I was talking about this to a fellow class mate earlier today. I think there are new methods/ways out there to discover, it’s just there aren’t that many people that are actually interested/have the resources to go after them and invest their time and money into discovering them.

[/quote]

It’s true that S/C is VERY low on the totum pole for the scientific community
Therefore there isn’t much research done on it.

Scientists would much rather find a cure for cancer, aids, etc than find mew methods to get strong.

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]jldume wrote:
I was talking about this to a fellow class mate earlier today. I think there are new methods/ways out there to discover, it’s just there aren’t that many people that are actually interested/have the resources to go after them and invest their time and money into discovering them.

[/quote]

It’s true that S/C is VERY low on the totum pole for the scientific community
Therefore there isn’t much research done on it.

Scientists would much rather find a cure for cancer, aids, etc than find mew methods to get strong.[/quote]

Sorry no.

One big believer in the strength and conditioning of its subjects is the military, moreso the US military.

They’re actively working on ways to improve soldier mobility in the field and at home. They’ve had people working on ways to implement an exoskeleton operating frame to strap onto a soldier so they can lift heavier items, not become encumbered by the weight and get shit done faster.

Forklift trucks are clumsy in comparison to these things.

I believe any gene enhancement program will come from the military and this goes hand in hand with S&C.

^like this:

[quote]harrypotter wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]jldume wrote:
I was talking about this to a fellow class mate earlier today. I think there are new methods/ways out there to discover, it’s just there aren’t that many people that are actually interested/have the resources to go after them and invest their time and money into discovering them.

[/quote]

It’s true that S/C is VERY low on the totum pole for the scientific community
Therefore there isn’t much research done on it.

Scientists would much rather find a cure for cancer, aids, etc than find mew methods to get strong.[/quote]

Sorry no.

One big believer in the strength and conditioning of its subjects is the military, moreso the US military.

They’re actively working on ways to improve soldier mobility in the field and at home. They’ve had people working on ways to implement an exoskeleton operating frame to strap onto a soldier so they can lift heavier items, not become encumbered by the weight and get shit done faster.

Forklift trucks are clumsy in comparison to these things.

I believe any gene enhancement program will come from the military and this goes hand in hand with S&C.[/quote]

They did an exoskeleton with zombies once in a moovie.

[quote]harrypotter wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]jldume wrote:
I was talking about this to a fellow class mate earlier today. I think there are new methods/ways out there to discover, it’s just there aren’t that many people that are actually interested/have the resources to go after them and invest their time and money into discovering them.

[/quote]

It’s true that S/C is VERY low on the totum pole for the scientific community
Therefore there isn’t much research done on it.

Scientists would much rather find a cure for cancer, aids, etc than find mew methods to get strong.[/quote]

Sorry no.

One big believer in the strength and conditioning of its subjects is the military, moreso the US military.

They’re actively working on ways to improve soldier mobility in the field and at home. They’ve had people working on ways to implement an exoskeleton operating frame to strap onto a soldier so they can lift heavier items, not become encumbered by the weight and get shit done faster.

Forklift trucks are clumsy in comparison to these things.

I believe any gene enhancement program will come from the military and this goes hand in hand with S&C.[/quote]

How does what you said prove me wrong in anyway?

Sure, the US military is spending money to build an exoskeleton, and to improve soldier mobility. Building an exoskeleton isn’t S/C research, it’s weapon development research. What does that have to do with how low S/C is on the research totum pole?

On a side note, if the US military was really interested in S/C, then they would put a little bit more thought into their PT. Pushups/situps/running isn’t exactly cutting edge stuff.

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]harrypotter wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]jldume wrote:
I was talking about this to a fellow class mate earlier today. I think there are new methods/ways out there to discover, it’s just there aren’t that many people that are actually interested/have the resources to go after them and invest their time and money into discovering them.

[/quote]

It’s true that S/C is VERY low on the totum pole for the scientific community
Therefore there isn’t much research done on it.

Scientists would much rather find a cure for cancer, aids, etc than find mew methods to get strong.[/quote]

Sorry no.

One big believer in the strength and conditioning of its subjects is the military, moreso the US military.

They’re actively working on ways to improve soldier mobility in the field and at home. They’ve had people working on ways to implement an exoskeleton operating frame to strap onto a soldier so they can lift heavier items, not become encumbered by the weight and get shit done faster.

Forklift trucks are clumsy in comparison to these things.

I believe any gene enhancement program will come from the military and this goes hand in hand with S&C.[/quote]

How does what you said prove me wrong in anyway?

Sure, the US military is spending money to build an exoskeleton, and to improve soldier mobility. What does that have to do with how low S/C is on the research totum pole? Building an exoskeleton isn’t S/C research, it’s weapon development research.

On a side note, if the US military was really interested in S/C, then they would put a little bit more thought into their PT. Pushups/situps/running isn’t exactly cutting edge stuff.[/quote]

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding

The National Cancer Institute alone had a budget of 6.4 billion/year in 2010, and they are just one organization that researches cancer. Do you really think that S/C research has a budget anywhere near that?

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]harrypotter wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]jldume wrote:
I was talking about this to a fellow class mate earlier today. I think there are new methods/ways out there to discover, it’s just there aren’t that many people that are actually interested/have the resources to go after them and invest their time and money into discovering them.

[/quote]

It’s true that S/C is VERY low on the totum pole for the scientific community
Therefore there isn’t much research done on it.

Scientists would much rather find a cure for cancer, aids, etc than find mew methods to get strong.[/quote]

Sorry no.

One big believer in the strength and conditioning of its subjects is the military, moreso the US military.

They’re actively working on ways to improve soldier mobility in the field and at home. They’ve had people working on ways to implement an exoskeleton operating frame to strap onto a soldier so they can lift heavier items, not become encumbered by the weight and get shit done faster.

Forklift trucks are clumsy in comparison to these things.

I believe any gene enhancement program will come from the military and this goes hand in hand with S&C.[/quote]

How does what you said prove me wrong in anyway?

Sure, the US military is spending money to build an exoskeleton, and to improve soldier mobility. Building an exoskeleton isn’t S/C research, it’s weapon development research. What does that have to do with how low S/C is on the research totum pole?

On a side note, if the US military was really interested in S/C, then they would put a little bit more thought into their PT. Pushups/situps/running isn’t exactly cutting edge stuff.[/quote]

I did not lay claim to an exoskeleton machine being linked directly to S&C but moreso the desire to have stronger soldiers or units.

Governments around the world would be very touchy if the likes of the US military delved into gene manipulation to enhance its soldiers.

This isn’t a mere dream scenario either. If there was a way to permanently enhance a soldier from the DNA-up rather than using drugs then the conditions for super soldiers would be a more stable template to use.

Drugs have side effects, DNA enhancement requires trial and error to get right but one day it will be a reality. SO this is what links the military to S&C.

[quote]darkhorse1-1 wrote:
Have we come to a point where everything is figured out and all we have to do is the reading to find out what works? Or are there new theories being developed and proven everyday?[/quote]
Not for nothing, but this was one of the points behind my “5 Timeless Lessons” article. It’s not that there are tons of new concepts to be created, it’s that the same, or very very similar, theories are being constantly applied in a sometimes-new way or sometimes the same way for the first time to a new audience.

Training knowledge goes in circles, and a lot of what’s being done now is just being rediscovered and/or refined. Finding a brand new, never-before-seen training technique in the 21st century is like coming up with a brand new, never-before-seen/heard piece of music. It might be new to you and the people around you, but the notes you’re using have been around for 100+ years (or longer for music) and the odds are good that somebody somewhere figured it out before you.

Granted, that doesn’t take into account the influence of technology on training/strength and conditioning. If a new tool is invented, then certainly either new training theories will need to be created and designed to suit it or existing theories will need to be adapted and applied to it.

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
On a side note, if the US military was really interested in S/C, then they would put a little bit more thought into their PT. Pushups/situps/running isn’t exactly cutting edge stuff.[/quote]
They talked about changing it up last year and moving to a five exercise test (60 yd shuttle run, standing long jump, 1-minute no rest push-ups, timed 1.5-mile run, 1-minute “rower” [arm-overhead sit-up]), but they scrapped the idea just a few months ago before ever implementing it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120831/us-army-physical-fitness/

Well I know they are looking into myostatin inhibitors as a cure to musclular dystrophy, so that might be as close as we will get to Gene Therapy.

[quote]darkhorse1-1 wrote:
So how do we come up with new ideas if the world of strength training theory hasn’t had a paradigm shift since the 70’s? Have we come to a point where everything is figured out and all we have to do is the reading to find out what works? Or are there new theories being developed and proven everyday?

What do you guys think of Ziatsiorsky? I tried reading one of his popular books. The words were too big. I need someone to summarize it and dumb it down.

Is anyone else skeptical of the results of studies in the Journal of strength and conditioning? all of the sample sizes are too small and it seems like a lot of the studies are on stuff that we had already confirmed. I must have pissed off the NSCA and they give me phony journals because they don’t like me for having a big mouth and being unprofessional talking about studies on the internet.[/quote]

Uh, read Waterbury. He was ahead of his time, his ideas are being implemented everywhere in some form or another.
The basic movements don’t change, how you move them does. Speed, weight, frequency. These aren’t totally new, but its a new way of thinking about training. Old ideas like pounding each muscle belly into the ground on a weekly split are the old ideas from the '70’s and keep in mind, it works. However, more muscle group combinations, understanding lines of tension, focusing on performance, monitoring fatigue, all this is pretty new stuff. It evolves slowly, but it evolves.

Recently I have been thinking about all the stuff that used to hold me back. Things like:

  • Abandoning gear (not steroids mind you) but not using straps and belts and shit like that all in fear of having a weak grip or back, or what not. No you shouldn’t use these tools all the time, but they should be used. You can lift more with them, and if you can lift more, then you progress more.

  • Pre-training routines. There is nothing wrong with pre-training routines until they become dogma, then it’s holding you back. If you feel like lifting, go lift. It doesn’t matter if you have had your pre-training drink, taken your sups, stretched, or whatever. If you can get it in, great, if not fuck it, lift anyway.

  • Training sick. I don’t do this anymore. I found I stay sick longer and I cannot rest enough to recover from training and illness.

  • If what you are doing, keep doing it until it stops working. Changing shit that’s working will hold you back.

  • Keep it simple, don’t out think your training.

  • Leave out the shit that doesn’t really work. It may be a feather in your cap to be able to do 200 push-ups in 2 minutes, but it will never give you size and strength. Know the point of diminished returns. You’re not going to get much more from 200 push-ups than you would 50.

  • Long cardio sessions keep you fat, fuck them.

  • Read the articles on this here website. T-Nation has had the best information I have ever come across. You want the newest and best ideas, they are right here. If you don’t know what to do about something, read what Poliquin said about it and that will work. But Waterbury revolutionized the way I think about training. A lot of people thought he was full of shit, except he’s right and what he says works.

This is a topic I’m curious about, myself – but I disagree that there haven’t been any paradigm shifts since the 1970’s. Weight training for many sports never really took off until well into the 1990’s – now just about every competitive athlete (and many hobbyists) short of marathoners and tour de France bicyclists do some kind of direct strength training. Serious large-scale scientific studies of strength training is very much in its infancy (as others above mentioned, there hasn’t been THAT much money behind the studies…but it’s gradually picking up steam).

I think we’re living in an exciting time, in regards to understanding the physiology behind resistance training – as pat, above, states, T-Nation itself is a pretty decent source in regards to simplifying and organizing the latest information.

One recent example is the article about anti-inflammatories – now, to me, the research is in its infancy and there’s no reasonable way that anyone can make a valid conclusion or reccommendation on the matter (at least not without begging to be proven wrong in the future), but the very fact that such a thing is even being studied is itself an example of how science is making headway into practical S/C training.

Isn’t there research into ways to engineer the human type of muscle into say the muscle type of a chimp, tiger, etc?

I wonder how much a Tiger can deadlift. o_O

[quote]harrypotter wrote:
I wonder how much a Tiger can deadlift. o_O[/quote]

Nothing. They’re not bipedal, and they don’t have opposable thumbs.

But I like your line of thought.