While I got fairly successful as a coach, I'm still a meathead and I'm just as passionate about training as I ever was. So like most guys who are into this ''hobby'' I like to find cool info to further my knowledge, or simply get entertained.
I'll use this thread to occasionally post some links that I find useful or interesting.
Convincing women to train hard and lift big weights is not an easy task. An image is worth a thousand word. My wife doesn't like to lift weights, but she loves strongman-type stuff and that lead to liking olympic style movements.
When she lacks motivation to train, here is a good place to look at:
I feel that most ''modern'' training advice is rarely worth it's salt. I take most of my inspiration from old school books and articles. Charles Poliquin once told me that if I wanted to learn something new about training, I should read a book that is a hundred years old!
ALways cool to check out new stuff (I liked the Gorillaman blog )
When I was prepping for my first show, I got as many 'old' bodybuilding books as I could. Not only to see if there was anything I could learn, and incorporate, but the sheer inspiration factor was priceless (got an old worn out copy of the original Pumping Iron Book!)
Agreed, I like that site. But PLEASE let me do the posting. This thread is about the stuff I like. When I recommend a site I put my reputation on it. If you want to talk about another site, fine. But the thread specifically put out so that I can give MY recommendations should stay this way.
That's pretty cool. How do you feel about the applicability of most of the studies? For instance I'm sure many studies may find a "significant difference" but in the real world it still might not matter. Or on the other hand I've seen studies showing "no significant difference between groups" even though there was a difference of a few kg of fat lost.
That ergo-log is a gold mine. It's perfect for guys like me who are not professional strength coaches but consider strength training as a bit more than a mere hobby.
Hope I'm not out of line for answering since this is CT's thread. When studies refer to something as "significant" or "not significant" they're talking about statistical significance. Most, if not all, study results are published in terms of averages between two groups. If a difference in the averages is not significant that means it can be explained away as a result of chance rather than the differences in the diet or exercise program they were studying.
In your example, I'd be surprised if a difference of a few kilograms was not significant, although it's possible if a study lasted several months. Most studies would report something like "Group A lost an average of 5.2 lbs. and Group B lost an average of 5.6 lbs." In this example, it's pretty clear that Group B lost more weight in an absolute sense. However, was the difference of 0.4 lbs. significant, i.e., was it the result of the difference in the diet or exercise program, or was it the result of chance? A difference that small probably would be the result of chance, meaning that if the Groups were reversed and Group B had followed Group A's diet/exercise program they still would have lost 5.6 lbs.
Yes, I know. That's why I asked him if he thought it was actually meaningful and not just "statistically significant". Depending on P-values, effect sizes, etc..something that is claimed to not be "statistically significant" might actually have real world value and vice versa. Also there's the possibility of a sponsor with an interest in the study that may lead to biased results.
Be careful with assessing results with the subjective use of "small." A "small" difference between two groups can be extremely statistically significant, while a "large" difference between the two can be statistically insignificant. A difference of 0.000001 lbs of average weight loss between the two groups could be significant if the standard deviation (the square root of the averaged distances from the mean) of both the groups is small enough and the level of significance at which the researchers test is restrictive enough. (Of course, the weight loss of each individual subject in both groups would have had to been pretty much equal to have such a nice and small SD).
Your point is well taken and you are correct. As a practical matter, and something you alluded to, having an SD so small as to make a 0.000001 lbs. difference statistically significant would not be something you would ever find in a real study, so my use of the phrase "small difference" implied that any difference would be well within the SD of the sample. A 0.000001 lbs. difference would mean that one guy forgot to clean his belly button lint.
I think the answer to this would vary based on the study and your goals. And you would need to apply some of your own critical thinking. Suppose you has a study that compared weight loss between Group A, which did cardio and diet, and Group B, which did cardio, weight training, and diet. Suppose the study showed no statistically significant difference in average weight loss between the two groups. What can we conclude? An uneducated person would conclude that weight training provides no benefit to those trying to lose weight. We here on T-Nation, however, know better (or certainly should know better) and unless the study provided other data (such as percentage of body fat measurements) we would conclude that the study was worthless.
Thanks Stu. I attribute this to being french Canadian... When I first started writing and giving seminar my english wasn't that great. So I instinctively started to be very precise, even repetitive in my explanations to make sure that everybody would understand.
As my english got "less bad" I kept the same habit. I will often explain a concept 3-4 different ways, so that everybody can at least understand it from one angle.