[quote]belligerent wrote:
I respect Tate as an athlete/coach, but his statement in that video represents everything that is wrong with the training world. The single biggest impediment to progress in many fields is that people tend to focus solely on WHO says something rather than on WHAT is being said - they’re committed to personalities rather than ideas. This mentality has warped the field of physical training into a social club rather than a science. A rational person evaluates training methods by looking directly at the facts of reality and using his own independent judgment to decide whether they stand on their own logical merit, not by listening to one person over another.
[/quote]
And if someone lacks the knowledge to properly evaluate what’s being said, how is he supposed to know who he should listen to? Simple, he should listen to the guy who is where he wants to be, just like Tate said, that’s the sensible thing in his situation. With that in mind, his advice is actually pretty good for most of the people that attend his seminars. Tate himself on the other hand, he’s got enough knowledge to evaluate what’s being said and determine whether it’s useful or crap so I’m sure he does that.
He’s also correct that there are too many damn gurus on the internet, those are probably the last people you should listen to. It’s way too easy to be an expert on the web.
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
If the studies are done on individuals without prior lifting experience then it doesn’t really count. Virtually any style of lifting will yield results. What we are really getting at is once you’re advanced, can a particular style help you progress. Lift heavy and fast without sacrificing form. To change it up every once in a blue moon I can see using the super slow style, but that’s about it. [/quote]
Well, it kind of depends on what they’re testing and what you’re hoping to get out of them.
If you’re looking for them to find some sort of “holy grail” of muscle building that will completely revolutionize the bodybuilding industry, then you’re gonna come away disappointed. If you’re simply looking for evidence to further support what anecdotal evidence already supports, then they can be useful.
That said, you can find a study to support just about any ideology (or at least twist the results to). So, they can’t be your only source of evidence.
[quote]D Public wrote:
the most important thing is that you use muscular strength to move the weight rather than momentum…
arthur jones never said to lift slow…he said reps should be performed as fast as possible in perfect form…but if any doubt should exist regarding form then the reps should be performed at a more controlled pace…
thats just common sense, man…
[/quote]
That hasn’t stopped some of his contemporaries from saying that you should lift slow though. Little is more enamored with Mentzer, who was a little coo coo for Coco puffs IMO especially towards the end, than Jones himself.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
That said, you can find a study to support just about any ideology (or at least twist the results to). So, they can’t be your only source of evidence.[/quote]
That’s what it all boils down to. Studies without real life results to back them up are nothing but pure theory, in the world of lifting.
Honestly, i think they lack the intelligence to understand his ideas…it’s either that or their egos are so inflated that they can’t admit that their own ideas suck…
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
That’s what it all boils down to. Studies without real life results to back them up are nothing but pure theory, in the world of lifting. [/quote]
And that should be the end of that (but somehow I doubt it will be-lol)
Despite the fact that no known bodybuilder has built any appreciable degree of muscle by training in this manner, you would think that if it were indeed a viable method,there would be at least ONE who we would have heard of, especially as it completely knocks the traditionally accepted protocols…and yet… no one.
The constant aspect to note is that the ‘founders’, or proponents of these usually non traditional approaches never actually look like their recommendations are working very well for themselves… curiouser and curiouser -lol
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
That’s what it all boils down to. Studies without real life results to back them up are nothing but pure theory, in the world of lifting. [/quote]
And that should be the end of that (but somehow I doubt it will be-lol)
Despite the fact that no known bodybuilder has built any appreciable degree of muscle by training in this manner, you would think that if it were indeed a viable method,there would be at least ONE who we would have heard of, especially as it completely knocks the traditionally accepted protocols…and yet… no one.
The constant aspect to note is that the ‘founders’, or proponents of these usually non traditional approaches never actually look like their recommendations are working very well for themselves… curiouser and curiouser -lol
[quote]D Public wrote:
Honestly, i think they lack the intelligence to understand his ideas…it’s either that or their egos are so inflated that they can’t admit that their own ideas suck…
[/quote]
Yeah, perhaps. In some cases I also suspect that they’re simply looking to “cash in” on people’s laziness. Just think how attractive a training system where you don’t have to use heavy weight, or you can use super heavy weights (to bolster your ego) but not move them at all, or only move them through a minimal ROM, and you only train once a week (if not even less) is to your average cough potato who wants to look like (Brad Pitt, Ryan Reynolds, insert other “buff” celebrity).
Contrast that with programs where the trainee is in the gym 5-6 times a week and are expected to have to work up to big weights through a full ROM (which takes a substantial amount of invested time and energy).
The first option(s) seem like a much more attractive one to the average American who is used to an “instant gratification” society (fast food, the internet, etc…) and who would probably rather spend obscene amounts of relatively useless supplements (not that there aren’t good ones out there too) and gimmicky exercise equipment looking for a “get big quick” scheme than to actually put in the work necessary to actually achieve those goals.
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
I wouldn’t advise super slow anything, but something popped into my thick skull. Olympic power lifters are kinda lean and not bulky whatsoever. Bodybuilders don’t explode with the same intensity and are much larger. Now, oly pl do 1 or 2 reps and have long rest periods. BB’ers are under tension much longer with shorter rest periods.
On the other hand. The recruitment of the biggest (fast twitch) fibers are only activated when they are needed. If you’re repping really slow I’m afraid you wouldn’t recruit the biggest fibers. I’m far from huge, but for the most part explosive movements and higher reps have worked best for me. I also vary my reps and sets greatly to avoid plateauing.
[/quote]
Fiber recruitment is determined by force requirements, not speed requirements.
Picture yourself pushing as hard as you can against a resistance that corresponds exactly to your maximum force output. No movement occurs, but fiber activation is at maximum.
Slow training recruits fast twitch fibers in an alternating fashion. A dramatic drop-off in force production (failure) occurs when all availible fibers have been tapped.
[quote]D Public wrote:
Honestly, i think they lack the intelligence to understand his ideas…it’s either that or their egos are so inflated that they can’t admit that their own ideas suck…
[/quote]
Yeah, perhaps. In some cases I also suspect that they’re simply looking to “cash in” on people’s laziness. Just think how attractive a training system where you don’t have to use heavy weight, or you can use super heavy weights (to bolster your ego) but not move them at all, or only move them through a minimal ROM, and you only train once a week (if not even less) is to your average cough potato who wants to look like (Brad Pitt, Ryan Reynolds, insert other “buff” celebrity).
Contrast that with programs where the trainee is in the gym 5-6 times a week and are expected to have to work up to big weights through a full ROM (which takes a substantial amount of invested time and energy).
The first option(s) seem like a much more attractive one to the average American who is used to an “instant gratification” society (fast food, the internet, etc…) and who would probably rather spend obscene amounts of relatively useless supplements (not that there aren’t good ones out there too) and gimmicky exercise equipment looking for a “get big quick” scheme than to actually put in the work necessary to actually achieve those goals.
[/quote]
You are fucking clueless. SuperSlow is the HARDEST training method ever invented. It’s like running an all-out 400m-800m sprint for every body part. If you want to doubt its effectiveness, fine. But there is nothing about a SuperSlow workout that is attrative to the lazy.
We can all only talk from our own experience of varying training methods - Super Slow works for me as no plateaus are hit, has done for years and continues to do so…pain and progression - who can ask for more;) What I also achieved from SS is a mental strength and determination which was not nearly as apparent in other forms…white hot poker in the muscle and continuation of relaxed rapid breathing for another 20 seconds of concentric / eccentric movement - volitional fatigue met and a deeper focus comes to play with isometric contraction until the body completely shuts down - no rest, bring on the next…lay it all on the line and see you next week - time to feed.
When I see a single high level bodybuilder, powerlifter, or strongman that trains using only this training method, I will reconsider it. Until then, I call bullshit.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
When I see a single high level bodybuilder, powerlifter, or strongman that trains using only this training method, I will reconsider it. Until then, I call bullshit. [/quote]
And that’s the end of that chapter!
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I have no ability or willingness to think for myself, so I rely on others to tell me what training methods are acceptable. I am unwilling to consider unorthodox methods becuase the only thing that registers in my mind is the disapproval of other bodybuilders. I talk shit about things I’ve never tried to prove that I fit in.
[/quote]
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I have no ability or willingness to think for myself, so I rely on others to tell me what training methods are acceptable. I am unwilling to consider unorthodox methods becuase the only thing that registers in my mind is the disapproval of other bodybuilders. I talk shit about things I’ve never tried to prove that I fit in.
[/quote]
fixed
[/quote]
This is as full of straw man and ad hominem attacks, blatantly false and uneducated statements as swiss cheese…not even gonna touch on it hahaha.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This is the only activity in the world where people will willingly defend ideas/people that have no real world results.
LOL!
I want to be a better CPA, I’m gonna go ask some Plumber where foreign exchange losses go on a k-1.
[/quote]
Judging from this forum, that’s a very logical decision. The last thing you would want to be doing is asking rich, reputable accountants who have helped other accountants make lots of money, obviously.
