T Nation

Stupid Arguments & Recommendations

I’m loathe to post this here owing to the recent increase in forum trolling, but there are several random bullshit arguments going on where people are throwing around discussions of evidence, and what’s best, and to put it as succinctly as possible, they’re missing the big picture.

Arguments such as the split vs TBT debate remind me of the current argument in the research literature between advocates of the ACSM/NSCA recommendations, and those saying there is nothing to support their specific stance.

Individuals in the later group are generally ignored and ostracized for going against the trend, and no, I’m not using this to advocate those who are just ignorant (owing to their youth) and dogmatic (owing to their stupidity) in their own shitty way (not thinking of anyone in particular…how about a fill in the blanks game…Dnkd…couldn’t resist).

Recently, Robert Otto of the Human Performance Lab at Adelphi University, New York, published yet another critical article of the ACSM, but at the end presented what I consider a nice summary, or set of general recommendations.

These general themes cut through alot of the bullshit, and generally you can go through each and “tick the box” when looking at the programs and mannerisms of training of some of the most successful guys who have posted pics here.

So, here we go for a set of general, cut through the nonsense, recommendations for strength and hypertrophy training.

JEPonline, 9(1), 2006.

  1. Select a mode of exercise that feels comfortable throughout the range of motion. There is very little evidence to support the superiority of free weights or machines for increasing muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.

  2. Choose a repetition duration that will ensure the maintenance of consistent form throughout the set. No study using conventional exercise equipment reports any significant difference in muscular hypertrophy, power, or endurance as a result of manipulating repetition duration.

  3. Choose a range of repetitions between three and 15 (e.g., 3-5, 6-8, 8-10, etc.). There is very little evidence to suggest that a specific range of repetitions (e.g., 3-5 versus 8-10) or time-under-load (e.g., 30s versus 90s) significantly impacts the increase in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.

  4. Perform one ‘maximal’ set of each exercise. The preponderance of resistance-training studies shows no difference in the gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance as a result of performing a greater number of sets.

EDITED BY GG: the general theme of Otto and Carpinelli’s review work, of which there are several articles, relates to the performance of one maximal set, which may be preceded by any number of warm-up sets. This is similar in nature to the basis of Arthur Jones’ recommendations.

  1. After performing a combination of concentric and eccentric muscle actions, terminate each exercise at the point where the concentric phase of the exercise is becoming difficult, if not impossible, while maintaining good form. There is very little evidence to suggest that going beyond this level of intensity (e.g., supramaximal or accentuated eccentric muscle actions) will further enhance muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.

  2. Allow enough time between exercises to perform the next exercise in proper form. There is very little evidence to suggest that different rest periods between sets or exercises will significantly affect the gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.

  3. Depending on individual recovery and response, choose a frequency of 2-3 times per week to stimulate each targeted muscle group. One session a week has been shown to be just as effective as 2-3 times/week for some muscle groups. There is very little evidence to suggest that training a muscle more than 2-3 times/week will produce greater gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.

GG content - note that this is quite specific for ‘each muscle group’. If you are neglecting training a muscle group, or argue that a particular exercise (pull-ups) is sufficient to stimulate and train all muscle groups involved, then you’re just an idiot.

Do I have problems with these recommendations? Of course… for example it potentially suggests that just do a sub-max warm-up of 1-set, then do 1 maximal set of 3 reps, and do that once or twice per week, and that’s enough.

But as far as general recommendations go, they sum up alot of commonalities in the most successful programs quite nicely.

Happy arguing

J-Lo

I hate your long winded posts they abhorrent and should be removed from the site

[quote]optheta wrote:
I hate your long winded posts they abhorrent and should be removed from the site[/quote]

Sweet response! I like it.

[quote]optheta wrote:
I hate your long winded posts they abhorrent and should be removed from the site[/quote]

If you are being sarcastic (which I hope you are), then you need to emphasize it a little more.

it is impossible to read your post because my eyes glaze over and i start daydreaming after the first sentence i have tried 12 times now to no avail so your words will go unheard maybe you should improve writing style to be more attractive to eyes so they do not sleep upon viewing of your words?

[quote]Tumbles wrote:
it is impossible to read your post because my eyes glaze over and i start daydreaming after the first sentence i have tried 12 times now to no avail so your words will go unheard maybe you should improve writing style to be more attractive to eyes so they do not sleep upon viewing of your words?[/quote]

I agree that GG and others like Bill Roberts aren’t the easiest reads, but I am always glad I put the effort into reading their posts when I am done.

[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
they sum up alot of commonalities in the most successful programs quite nicely.

[/quote]

Couple of things:

  1. I notice that all the big boys I have conversed with, or have posted publicly here, do seem to have more in common than not.

  2. It seems like it is typically the simple shit that is the most common and effective: Get stronger, be consistent, eat.

  3. K.I.S.S. seems like a much better approach for many, many, many people. Yet everyone is all wrapped up in making everything so fucking complicated.

  4. Can I be directed to the origin of the J-Lo thing? I want to lol too…

  5. GG has a tiny penis.

I think the lack of evidence for supramaximal holds in particular, as well as rest periods and time under tension, reflects the incomplete nature of the science, rather than an actual insignificance of those factors. Just my somewhat knee-jerk reaction.

More generally, though I agree that those recommendations would describe a high percentage of routines, they could be followed to the letter to still come up with a terrible program. That being the case, I’m really not sure how they are useful.

Also, even the stupidest argument can be enough to make you stop and go through the logic of your own position, which is rarely a bad thing.

What’s the relevance of this post ? Were you just being informative ?

People are way to focused on methods of training when any consistent program with progressive overload will yield results. It took me 6 months to realize that i needed to shift my focus from lifting to nutrition… anything else is unnecessary

GG great post as usual.

I do not get why everyone makes lifting so complicated. Sometimes while reading the beginner section I become confused with some of the complex crap people come up with. I feel like lifting relies heaviily on instincts. You should be willing and able to figure out what works and what doesnt. Thats how everything else in life works so why wouldnt it be the same with lifting?

[quote]angus_beef wrote:
What’s the relevance of this post ? Were you just being informative ?

[/quote]

Lol, did you read it?

He answers those questions, pretty early on in the post too.

J-Lo reference: CC’s spin on my handle, cheeky German bastard!!

Relevance of post - this guy Prof. Otto gets ripped, but his general recommendations are pretty damn simple and sum things up nicely.

This shit is pretty fucking simple, and this guy Otto + friends have spent a shitload of time doing all kinds of meta-analyses on all the primary literature to come up with something which is pretty fucking simple and obvious…you’d think it was obvious…well it must be to the big guys in my gym who train this way and I can pretty much guarantee never read a single piece of the literature they’ve (Otto and friends) reviewed over the years.

Penis size…lets just say the distance from the end of my thumb (abducted to 90degrees) to the end of my index finger is longer than any pen in my office, and just a bit shorter than a brand new Staedtler tradition HB pencil…and no, no pictures will be provided :wink:

i liked 5-7 but get/understand how out of context people might under train, i do believe however that those who are guilty of not working enough shouldn’t be advised/saved. if you’re doing one warm up and one working set of three reps, once per week…you’re fucked.

way better read than the running vs jumping rope thread.

to those who have a hard time reading and understanding the post, genetics plays a role in both bodybuilding and aptitude.

Good stuff. Instead of destroying a muscle with ‘some reps for some sets,’ people like to accessorize and volumize and intensify… I say stay at your station, F’n destroy that muscle, vomit then go eat.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
angus_beef wrote:
What’s the relevance of this post ? Were you just being informative ?

Lol, did you read it?

He answers those questions, pretty early on in the post too.[/quote]

Yes i did read it but still, everything stated is pretty much common sense. For instance working to a maximum set, essentially ramping. I’m new to bodybuilding and yet still i’ve done this instinctively from day one. I don’t understand why someone would use the same weight for all their working sets. It just makes no sense to me.

[quote]cyruseven75 wrote:
i liked 5-7 but get/understand how out of context people might under train, i do believe however that those who are guilty of not working enough shouldn’t be advised/saved. if you’re doing one warm up and one working set of three reps, once per week…you’re fucked.

way better read than the running vs jumping rope thread.

to those who have a hard time reading and understanding the post, genetics plays a role in both bodybuilding and aptitude.

[/quote]

Last line is brilliant! There is no greater truth.

Nice post GG, most people don’t realise how simple training is. It’s those with shitty genetics and coordination that are behind the 8Ball to begin with and are constantly comparing everyone to their shitty physique and inability to make progress, as well as searching for complicated solutions and training methods. I’m a shit swimmer I’m just not built that way, but I could windmill dunk in high school and i’m only 5’11. But I’d be fucked if I hated BBall and wanted to be a swimmer and you’d probably see me on swimming forums bagging everyone’s training because it doesn’t work for me (like people here seem to do)

It’s maybe just as simple as any sport, if you can’t make progress by simple hard training, accept your limitations and rate of progress as being inferior to those around you that are more gifted. Don’t get upset, just do what you can with what you’ve got.

After 15 years in the industry there seem to be ‘general’ guidelines for progress… Shit genetics and newbies = heaps of training, and Supreme genetics and veterans = not much training (due to the relative intensities and loads being used)

The point is, training systems aren’t static, just like your physique. As your physique changes, your program must change with it.

LOL. Its best to leave journal referenced evidence as well as real world evidence out of discussion. This is one guys recommendations. And although, there is nothing off the wall there, you could find dozens of studies refuting each point. As well as finding dozens that support each. There are no absolutes, its best to just understand the variables.

For example, GG has a gigantic ass -------> GG has a small penis. A little bit of reasoning goes a long way.

[quote]dankid wrote:
LOL. Its best to leave journal referenced evidence as well as real world evidence out of discussion. This is one guys recommendations. And although, there is nothing off the wall there, you could find dozens of studies refuting each point. As well as finding dozens that support each. There are no absolutes, its best to just understand the variables.

For example, GG has a gigantic ass -------> GG has a small penis. A little bit of reasoning goes a long way.[/quote]

This shows how dense you can be. Or maybe it shows that you like to be the center of attention and make retarded posts just for the hell of it.

The points made in the OP are completely devoid of absolutes. The whole point of the post is to show that the commonalities shared between sucessful bodybuilders are not found when looking at tangible factors (rep schemes, ROM, frequency). The commonalities are found in the mindframes.

Why the FUCK haven’t dankid been banned yet? Please let X get his mod powers.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
This shows how dense you can be. Or maybe it shows that you like to be the center of attention and make retarded posts just for the hell of it.

The points made in the OP are completely devoid of absolutes. The whole point of the post is to show that the commonalities shared between sucessful bodybuilders are not found when looking at tangible factors (rep schemes, ROM, frequency). The commonalities are found in the mindframes. [/quote]

Good post…but you always have good posts.