The most important things I've learned in the gym

Ask or answer questions, discuss and express your views

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, parth, stuward, Ironman, Jungledoc, parth, stuward, Ironman, Jungledoc, parth, stuward, Ironman, Jungledoc, parth, stuward, Ironman, Jungledoc, parth, stuward

User avatar
Jungledoc
moderator
moderator
Posts: 7578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea

Post by Jungledoc » Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:44 am

Well, maybe I didn't express things well when I introduced the thread. What I had in mind was a sort of "core values" sort of thing. Build the details on those principles.

I think warming up is part of technique. I'm still not convinced about a general warm-up. I try to do a little, because all of the "big boys" say it's a good idea. I personally don't notice a difference in how I lift, and I haven't been injured enough to form an opinion as to whether it will save me from hurting myself. I haven't seen anyone site any research that is clear about that.

Specific warm-up I'm a big believer, and getting stronger in my beliefs all the time. I don't claim that it's universally true, because again, I'm not aware of evidence to that effect, and I don't dare generalize my personal experience to the whole population, because Ironman would call me on that. I have become convinced that warm-ups for each lift help me to lift better, and I suspect (again I don't claim to know) that I'm less likely to pull, stretch or tear ligaments, muscles or tendons when I do it. Lately I've been doing a lot more low-weight warm-up reps, then just a few going up in small increments. Just experimenting to see what works best for me. Judging from today's lifting, maybe I should go back to what I did before!

KPj
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 3482
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am

Post by KPj » Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:03 am

With regards to warm up and research - I've honestly never even looked. Due to my personal experience with it, I don't see the need to bother. For me it would be like looking for research to prove that fire does infact generate heat or that rain does infact fall from the sky :grin: That time could be spent working on my "javelin pose".

However I don't look at an 'optimal warm up' with regards to performance on lifts (if we're talking about pre workout warm up and not warm up sets). For example, I don't want it to come across that I feel dynamic warm ups will improve your lifting performance. I like them because they are a great way to improve "movement". Improving movement will keep you pain free or make you more pain free. For specific research on that, i've not looked any more in depth than the writing of people like Gray Cook, Shirley Sahrmann, Stuart McGill, etc

Not arguing, btw, just making myself clear (hopefully).

KPj

p.s Honestly, I question how many people on the net have actually read a full study. It's not easy. It's like another language. I actualy shy away from them because I genuinely don't understand them well enough. It's as exciting as reading an instruction manual.

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6647
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:11 am

This discussion on bro-science is what I was getting at when I said "only you know what you should do".

Much misinformation and conventional wisdom comes from people that have an easy time reaching their goals. These are the guys that gain weight by smelling iron, or are ripped to shreds eating oatmeal and egg whites.

This type of science is generated by .001% the people who have natural genetics and ability to progress regardless of what the do. That's why when Frank Zane says to do 1000 crunchs/day, people shouldn't listen. There's only 1 Frank Zane. No one else will ever have his body and he would probably have that body even without the 1000 crunches.

Maybe a gallon of milk will work (if you're 16 and your hormones are in top gear - Rips target audience) or maybe not (if you need help losing weight - Lyle's target audience).

What works for one person could be completely wrong for someone else. That's whay you need the combination of experience and analytical research to come up with options that you might be able to use. You will only be able to find the strategy that might work for you by trial and error and keeping an open mind.

-------

On a personal note, I used to post on several forums and I learned a great deal on those sites (Dr Squat, T-Nation, JP Fitness) but now this is the only one I post regularily on now because this is where I found people with the attitude I was looking for.

Something I was looking for was an indication that it was possible for a guy my age to make progress. All the "research" suggested that people lost muscle and gained fat in their 40s and 50s and it accelerated after that. That wasn't the answer I wanted. I was doing what I was told but I was continuing to get weaker and fatter. Once I found people here and at JP Fitness that actually made progress at my age, mentally, I was free to train the way I needed to. And if those were just anecdotes, that's what I needed. Now I'm getting stronger and leaner. Maybe not as fast as some others but but it's moving in the right direction that is my criteria for success.

User avatar
Jungledoc
moderator
moderator
Posts: 7578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea

Post by Jungledoc » Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:50 am

KPj wrote:Could write an essay on it to be honest.
I wish you would!

User avatar
Jungledoc
moderator
moderator
Posts: 7578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea

Post by Jungledoc » Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:54 am

KPj wrote:However I don't look at an 'optimal warm up' with regards to performance on lifts (if we're talking about pre workout warm up and not warm up sets). For example, I don't want it to come across that I feel dynamic warm ups will improve your lifting performance. I like them because they are a great way to improve "movement".
Yeah, I tend to blur the two concepts in my thinking, although I know the difference.
KPj wrote:Improving movement will keep you pain free or make you more pain free.
Maybe it would be valid to think of dynamic movement drills as an exercise in and of themselves, not as a preliminary to exercise.

NightFaLL
Member
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am

Post by NightFaLL » Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:03 am

pdellorto wrote:
ApolytonGP wrote:3. Given that "everything works" for newbies, how can we validate that the compound lift starting strength way is the only way to go? I know of at least one study showing 10 weeks with novices, random selected, doing free weights, selector machine, and soloflex. And there was no significant difference amongst the methods in terms of results.
You've brought this study up a number of times. I'd like to actually read it (or the abstract, if that's all I can get). Can you link to it?
I've actually read this study - from what I remember this is what the conclusion was:

Each group became strongest at the specific way the weight trained. Free weights were beat in both machine and soloflex by that specific group.

This simply goes back to specificity in the 'big' training principles - you have to do something to get good at.

However, I think you're skewing the study for your own needs. All it technically showed is that you need time for adequate CNS/Motor adjustment/development for new movements.

If you were to do a study where one group did weighted dips and the other did decline bench for as many weeks - then switched them - both would be stronger at their specific lift.

The study never actually showed any benefit of any of the three as it didn't measure LBM, strength gains on a non-trained movement, etc...

NightFaLL
Member
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am

Post by NightFaLL » Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:04 am

KPj wrote: KPj

p.s Honestly, I question how many people on the net have actually read a full study. It's not easy. It's like another language. I actualy shy away from them because I genuinely don't understand them well enough. It's as exciting as reading an instruction manual.
This is probably my biggest flaw, I tend to stick to the abstracts but I also don't take every study I read 100% to heart - it just gives me an idea of something to apply/try for myself, something new and interesting to ponder on sometimes.

KPj
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 3482
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am

Post by KPj » Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:21 am

Jungledoc wrote:Maybe it would be valid to think of dynamic movement drills as an exercise in and of themselves, not as a preliminary to exercise.
It's funny you say that because I think of my warm ups as a 'program' in themself. Like your training program, your 'warm up' will also progress (as your movement gets better).

You can also build on the training session from the warm up. If someone can't squat well, they'll typically get something like Sumo DB Deadlifts as their main lower body movement. However we will work on the squat pattern in the warm up. Both parts feed into each other, really. I get lots of people who will have, for example, one really locked up ankle. So I know in the program I can't have them doing much/anything with significant dorsiflexion but, in the warm up, I can hammer away at ankle mobility. I can loosen up and stretch the calf muscles etc. When they improve on the warm up stuff you can introduce more into the program. This is stuff you would never get from a run on the treadmill :grin:

I always like to point out aswell that despite the fancy name, "Dynamic Warm ups" aren't really a new concept. It's just moving around, really.

KPj

KPj
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 3482
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am

Post by KPj » Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:28 am

NightFaLL wrote:
KPj wrote: KPj

p.s Honestly, I question how many people on the net have actually read a full study. It's not easy. It's like another language. I actualy shy away from them because I genuinely don't understand them well enough. It's as exciting as reading an instruction manual.
This is probably my biggest flaw, I tend to stick to the abstracts but I also don't take every study I read 100% to heart - it just gives me an idea of something to apply/try for myself, something new and interesting to ponder on sometimes.
I went through a phase myself of occasionally quoting studies backing up various points but, the more I learn about them the more I realise I really shouldn't. I'll check out abstracts as well or 'scan' them but, it's one of those things, I just feel I "know my place" now.

A good blog post that hits home with this point is,

http://markyoungtrainingsystems.com/201 ... ntentions/

I've stole his line before but to steal it again, Nick Tumminello has said, "if it doesn't make scientific sense, and it doesn't make common sense, then it's NONSENSE".

I love that line and it sums up my thoughts. If something "just makes sense" to me, I'll give it a go. If it doesn't make sense to me but has lots of scientific backing, I'll look into it more, try and make some sense of it, and give it ago. If it doesn't make sense in any respect, i'll most likely dismiss it....

KPj

User avatar
pdellorto
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 5252
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 8:43 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Post by pdellorto » Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:59 am

pdellorto wrote:
ApolytonGP wrote:3. Given that "everything works" for newbies, how can we validate that the compound lift starting strength way is the only way to go? I know of at least one study showing 10 weeks with novices, random selected, doing free weights, selector machine, and soloflex. And there was no significant difference amongst the methods in terms of results.
You've brought this study up a number of times. I'd like to actually read it (or the abstract, if that's all I can get). Can you link to it?

...and another, related point - I think "everything works" for newbies is true. but saying that anything works better than nothing, therefore everything works equally better than nothing is a logical fallacy. The fact that a person brand-new to lifting can make gains doing any kind of lifting is nice, but from a trainer and trainee standpoint, you want to find what's going to give you the most benefits specific to your goals in the shortest time (workout efficiency) and for the longest time (workout longevity).

robertscott
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 4424
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm

Post by robertscott » Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:09 pm

KPj - you've just made a very powerful enemy... Just kidding, I know you weren't having a go but i did think I'd better explain myself a little better

As for the studies vs broscience thing, I think people need to lift more and read less. A study may show that blah blah was better than blah blah for something, but who says it'll work for YOU? If someone gives me a tip on how to improve my bench and it works, then good stuff. If a research article tells me that 25 year old Scottish males can increase their deadlift by eating steak pie and chips on tuesday and i try it and it doesn't work, I'll stop doing it regardless of how statistically significant the results were.

Obviously that was a crap example but I'm sure you get my point. I liked nygmen's quote from Tim.

Eat. Lift. Sleep.

robertscott
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 4424
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm

Post by robertscott » Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:14 pm

oh aye and something else: If you do a basic routine training 3-4 days a week, focus on the big lifts with some iso stuff to bring up lagging parts, eat at least 1g of protein per lb bodyweight, 8 hours sleep a night, change up your rep ranges when you stagnate, change up your exercises when you stagnate and eat like a horse, then you will get bigger and stronger

how much more do you really have to know than that? the internet has made people try and apply WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY too much science to what is really pretty simple

User avatar
ApolytonGP
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1122
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:44 am

Post by ApolytonGP » Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:32 pm

see post below for links.
Last edited by ApolytonGP on Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

frogbyte
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm

Post by frogbyte » Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:34 pm

nygmen wrote:I'm pretty sure you are only caring 43 guys on your 52 man roster, and 7 of them are kickers, but I'm certainly not mad at you.
Heh I love that - I think I may have heard it before, though... any idea on an origin?

User avatar
ApolytonGP
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1122
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:44 am

Post by ApolytonGP » Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:01 pm

pdelletro:

1. Here is the article, I mentioned. (I don't know a free version, you could go to a medical library and probably get it for free if you want the full text. It is summarized in two different reviews below, which also describe other machine versus free studies)

http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstr ... gth.5.aspx

2. http://www.portalsaudebrasil.com/artigo ... fis135.pdf

(see summaries of other studies on page 3-5). You could also go pull the studies that he refers to, to get more info, make sure he quotes them fairly, etc.

3. I also found this study, just from Google scholar:

http://library2.usask.ca/theses/availab ... THESIS.pdf

(has a lit review of machine versus freeweight studies towards beginning, as well as doing an experimental test itself.)

Post Reply