We are talking about bodybuilding. We are talking about results. You are trying to act as if a physics equation will tell us specifically how fast someone should train before injury…when the human body IS ADAPTIVE TO STIMULI AND CAN COMPENSATE.
Therefore, unless you have studies showing this to occur in humans as you state, quit the bullshit. You aren’t speaking to a room filled with 11th graders. I am pretty sure all of those physics classes I took in college as well as biology put me on a level to know what I’m talking about.[/quote]
I specifically said in the first post you responded to that physics does NOT tell us the ideal speed of movement, but only tells us qualitatively that less acceleration poses less risk of injury. Empirically, it’s obvious that there is a big difference between doing an explosive rep and a more controlled rep lasting longer than two seconds in terms of the amount of stress placed on the joints.
You’ve written on here before about having serious knee pain due to your leg training. That’s not a good result. It would be tragic if you caused long-lasting damage to your musculoskeletal system, like I did, if you could have gotten the same size result while training more slowly.
We are talking about bodybuilding. We are talking about results. You are trying to act as if a physics equation will tell us specifically how fast someone should train before injury…when the human body IS ADAPTIVE TO STIMULI AND CAN COMPENSATE.
Therefore, unless you have studies showing this to occur in humans as you state, quit the bullshit. You aren’t speaking to a room filled with 11th graders. I am pretty sure all of those physics classes I took in college as well as biology put me on a level to know what I’m talking about.[/quote]
I specifically said in the first post you responded to that physics does NOT tell us the ideal speed of movement, but only tells us qualitatively that less acceleration poses less risk of injury. Empirically, it’s obvious that there is a big difference between doing an explosive rep and a more controlled rep lasting longer than two seconds in terms of the amount of stress placed on the joints.
You’ve written on here before about having serious knee pain due to your leg training. That’s not a good result. It would be tragic if you caused long-lasting damage to your musculoskeletal system, like I did, if you could have gotten the same size result while training more slowly.
[/quote]
?? When have I ever written that my knee pain was due to my training? It isn’t and that has never been written anywhere. I have been injured twice in my life. Once was in the military and none are any of your business but it isn’t training related.
You are talking out of your ass to people who are educated and have made way more progress than you. Why waste our time with this?
So this is best for hypertrophy? Why haven’t we seen a competitive bodybuilder that started out training this way, and has spent the majority of his career lifting in this fashion? Here’s my guess: it’s inferior. Belligerent, if this system isn’t superior for any type of lifting related sport, to include BBing (I thought you said it was about hypertrophy, yes?), what the fuck is it good for?
Oh that’s right, nothing. [/quote]
Bodybuilding isn’t a lifting sport, it’s a physique sport in which the training consists of lifting.
I believe the reason we have’t seen any elite bodybuilders use SuperSlow is because it’s heterodox and it flies in the face of the bodybuilding culture, which is the major force dictating how people choose to train. When you insist that bodybuilders would embrace any method that works, you’re assuming that they would have the perfect objectivity needed to go against everything they currently believe, drop all their existing customs, try something totally counterintuitive and be seen by other bodybuilders doing it. In reality, people are rarely that objective. This is true in all arenas of life, not just bodybuilding.
?? When have I ever written that my knee pain was due to my training? It isn’t and that has never been written anywhere. I have been injured twice in my life. Once was in the military and none are any of your business but it isn’t training related.
You are talking out of your ass to people who are educated and have made way more progress than you. Why waste our time with this?[/quote]
I thought you had said that you had knee problems associated with leg training. I’m not going to bother digging up the post I’m thinking of, but my apologies if I got the story wrong.
As to why I’m wasting your time, YOU entered into this debate on your own volition, so you’re wasting your own time if the subject doesn’t interest you.
I didn’t start this thread, and I never discuss anything HIT-related out here unless someone else brings it up first. You don’t see me popping up in random threads telling people to train HIT. I know better. But if a bunch of other people start a thread attacking ideas that I respect, I’m going to defend them. That’s all.
If I’m not mistaken belligerent believes that bodybuilding should be under the same standards as other sciences, where a proven idea should be taken as true without concern of the fame of the source or popularity of the idea.
Well, fortunately, they are held to the same standard, but unfortunately, not to your argument’s benefit. A HYPOTHESIS (which is what the SS method really is, regardless of how eloquently it is explained) is not taken to be true unless a successful experiment is run (usually many times) that proves it is true.
For the case at hand, a successful experiment would mean someone was taken and trained by SS to the pt of becoming a champion bodybuilder or weightlifter. Nothing even close to this has been documented so how on earth could you defend SS on a scientific basis?
Imagine a scientist wrote a book explaining how a balloon full of red ink will light up a room twice as efficiently as a standard light bulb, however, his balloons, while some showing by the accidental grace of God a glimmer of color, have not come anywhere close to lighting up a room. Would you rather take lessons on electricity from him or the scientist who created a blueprint for a functional lightbulb that has been reproduced successfully thousands of times?
Another example, maybe more useful since it is not quite as absurd as the balloons, a scientist writes about how a plant will grow faster under an intense halogen light than in sunlight. Fill in rest of story as above.
Hopefully you can see the correlation to weight training, and why, yes, Ronnie Coleman and Dave Tate are better sources of scientifically-sound training advice than this SS advocate, regardless of books written or citations made.
Beligerent, let’s look at this scientifically. The Dave Tate video and people saying look for pro bodybuilders who use SS are not ad hominems, appeals to illicit authorities or any other logical fallacies. In science, we hold certain models of phenomenon to be true because they deductively have the greatest support (results). The same is true for bodybuilding.
The current model of training is relatively consistent across the board and it isn’t SS. To merely chalk that up to some sort of bias and say that people are rarely objective is first of all making a claim without evidence. You have no idea whether or not people train a certain way because everyone else does or because they get results. Secondly, your assertion that people are rarely objective is self-referentially incoherent.
If it is so rare, how do you know you are being objective? How do you know you know you are being objective? It’s dissolves into infinite regress.
There is no support for SS, therefore it need not be held as the current training model.
This forum certainly seems to be getting more interesting:)To first address by statement regarding current status…this is not perceived BF levels of 12%, this is using arguably the best bioelectrical kit on the market providing +/-2% of the gold standard (hydrostatic). This is not so great and so I have no reason to promote it as such - my nutrition still needs work! As for not being 210lbs…err how tall am I 5ft 5 or 6ft 2…and I’ll request my girlfriend stands on a box next time she takes a photo to avoid any angles:)
The term ‘Science’ has been used quite frequently in the last few posts, I feel that in order for something to be scientifically proven it must be able to be reproduced and measurable. So if we look at the protocol of SS in itself - we have a training stimulus which can be completely reproduced down to the final second of stimulus and reproduced time and time again to exact standards.
Try to impose the same demand on regular rep and training methods used in other training models - this is impossible as it is based upon too many factors of varying rep speeds, no. of reps, weight shifted, vast variety of exercises (I predict that you all have a different leg or back routine which you enjoy and vary it every few weeks…therefore none of these can be reproduced or accurately measured - only your results can be. This brings us to the crux of the discussion…results.
I have spoken about genetic potential, the reason I can is because no variation exists in my training program and so when I hit maximum strength, then that will be me reaching my genetic potential of SS protocol - not my genetic potential as a powerlifter or any other form of training. I could devote my life to running and hit my genetic potential in marathons - so it entirely relies upon what your SAID is, but if training is entirely measurable without any form of deviation and still you are able to measure results - then science has been proven.
Will there ever be a competitive BB who has only succeeded due to SS, well firstly you need several hundred (with varying genetics) to try. Does this disprove the effectiveness of SS for the masses who are not in the small % of competitive specialists - No of course not. If I was the only one to make gains with this method I would still disagree with the majority of you who find nothing that it is good for, simply because its good for me and as I am not trying to sell any books, then that’s what counts. What’s good for you?
The only additional point I would like to make is to thank everyone for contributing - how dull and boring would this site (and all aspects of training) be if everyone thought (and trained) exactly the same way.
[quote]Guilty77 wrote:
Beligerent, let’s look at this scientifically… It’s dissolves into infinite regress.
There is no support for SS, therefore it need not be held as the current training model.[/quote]
I would have to say super slow training is one of the few methods/training principles I have no interest in trying. Not saying it couldn’t work, but as mentioned I don’t know anyone who got big doing it.
[quote]Academy wrote:
The term ‘Science’ has been used quite frequently in the last few posts, I feel that in order for something to be scientifically proven it must be able to be reproduced and measurable. So if we look at the protocol of SS in itself - we have a training stimulus which can be completely reproduced down to the final second of stimulus and reproduced time and time again to exact standards.
Try to impose the same demand on regular rep and training methods used in other training models - this is impossible as it is based upon too many factors of varying rep speeds, no. of reps, weight shifted, vast variety of exercises (I predict that you all have a different leg or back routine which you enjoy and vary it every few weeks…therefore none of these can be reproduced or accurately measured - only your results can be. This brings us to the crux of the discussion…results.
[/quote]
SS is not more easily reproduced or measurable than more traditional training models. We can prescribe all sorts of rep cadences other than SS to keep the rep tempo constant. We can prescribe all sorts of percentages of 1RM to keep the loading constant. We can set the frequency of training to keep it constant. We can prescribe a specific set of exercises regardless of the training type to keep that constant. etc…etc…etc…
In fact, that’s pretty much what all of the lifting studies do. Some even prescribe specific nutritional guidelines to keep that constant.
Now, if you’re talking about real world examples, then yes there is a fair amount of variation between them. The thing is, like people have been saying, there is also a fair amount that they have in common. One such similarity is that NONE of them train in a SS fashion.
Firstly, there is more to reaching one’s genetic potential than purely their lifting program. Nutrition for example is going to have a huuuuge limiting factor on whether someone reaches their genetic potential or not, regardless of training program.
Secondly, just stop using the word science. You don’t seem to have much understanding of how the scientific community actually studies kinesiology or what the term means in this context.
[quote]
Will there ever be a competitive BB who has only succeeded due to SS, well firstly you need several hundred (with varying genetics) to try. Does this disprove the effectiveness of SS for the masses who are not in the small % of competitive specialists - No of course not. If I was the only one to make gains with this method I would still disagree with the majority of you who find nothing that it is good for, simply because its good for me and as I am not trying to sell any books, then that’s what counts. What’s good for you?[/quote]
Firstly, super slow training has been around since 1982. That’s plenty of time for several hundred (probably more like hundreds of thousands) of aspiring bodybuilders to have tried it and seen what types of results that it gave them. You are kidding yourself if you think that at least several hundred (again, the number is probably much, much higher than that) aspiring bodybuilders haven’t tried it and not stuck with it due to them getting inferior results to more traditional and proven effective types of training.
Secondly, the people who actually make it pro (whether natural or assisted) often times have the best genetics out of the people who aspire to be bodybuilders for things like muscle size, shape, recovery abilities, strength, etc… If super slow really was a superior method of training and could work better for someone with lesser genetic traits, then it would work even better for those with superior genetic traits. Yet, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, all known professional bodybuilders (natural or otherwise) to date since the invention of super slow training have not chosen to stick to or use super slow training as their preferred method of lifting.
So, the argument that it’s better for the masses is a pretty weak one as well. Perhaps the idea that the decreased frequency of lifting and volume associated with the program (though I suspect that it’s too extreme a decrease for all but those on the very low end of the bell curve) would work better for those with lesser recovery abilities/greater life stresses/less optimal nutritional habits has some merit. But the actual lifting cadence has nothing to do with that.
[quote]Academy wrote:
The term ‘Science’ has been used quite frequently in the last few posts, I feel that in order for something to be scientifically proven it must be able to be reproduced and measurable. So if we look at the protocol of SS in itself - we have a training stimulus which can be completely reproduced down to the final second of stimulus and reproduced time and time again to exact standards. [/quote]
We’re not talking about the program being reproduce-able and measure-able, but rather the supposed RESULTS from such training. I don’t care if someone can track exactly how much weight they lifted for exactly how long, I care what that DOES for them.
And if we don’t see these results creating high level bodybuilders or strength athletes of any type, then all the so-called “science” in the world saying that SS SHOULD be producing these athletes doesn’t matter. Also, if your “genetic potential” (how I hate that term) is reached sooner (as concerning hypertrophy…OR strength, or both) with SS than another method of training, that proves it is inferior for those purposes.
You really think that over the last 2-2.5 decades at LEAST a couple hundred people haven’t given SS a serious try? That’s just silly and ignorant.
[quote]
Does this disprove the effectiveness of SS for the masses who are not in the small % of competitive specialists - No of course not. If I was the only one to make gains with this method I would still disagree with the majority of you who find nothing that it is good for, simply because its good for me and as I am not trying to sell any books, then that’s what counts. What’s good for you?[/quote]
We don’t have to disprove the effectiveness of SS training. It’s up to people using it to prov it. If we went through all this effort to disprove EVERY proposed strength training program, we would have no time for anything else in life, and would never decide which program to stick with. So instead, we filter out the BS programs, that nobody has gotten huge/incredibly strong from, and do slight variations of what HAS been proven to work. That simple.
Don’t kid yourself into thinking that we’re all in on some egotistical conspiracy to defeat SS training because we’re all too set in our ways. We’ve seen fads come and go. The shit that works stays on the charts. This too will pass
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
We don’t have to disprove the effectiveness of SS training. It’s up to people using it to prov it.[/quote]
Nicely done. This is one of the most important issues in science. The burden of proof is always on the claimant. It is not up to those who question a claim to disprove anything.
Again, my only points had to do with the support for certain claims made or implied in that book. In time, there may indeed be more work done and general opinions may be greatly altered due to more information. But at present, the specific issues I mentioned are not supported by peer-reviewed evidence. I would not care except that when you call a book Body by Science, certain expectations follow that pertain to the scientific process. On that, they could have done a better job.
I do agree with other points made in the book about the comparative primacy of strength training–in general, and the importance of genetics towards outcomes. These are supported by science, and are the most important claims in the book, in my view.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
We don’t have to disprove the effectiveness of SS training. It’s up to people using it to prov it.[/quote]
Nicely done. This is one of the most important issues in science. The burden of proof is always on the claimant. It is not up to those who question a claim to disprove anything.
[/quote]
Yes, nicely done indeed… in fact,… let’s look at things this way…
Traditional, acceleration based, training has endless studies that scientifically support increases in strength and size (in addition to endless anecdotal reports as well).
On the other hand, SS training has ONLY anecdotal reports, and NONE seem to come from anyone who has built a sufficiently respectable degree of strength or size in the process (and no scientific reports that support it in any way)… well, that should be that then (but yet again, I’m sure it won’t be -lol)
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
We don’t have to disprove the effectiveness of SS training. It’s up to people using it to prov it.[/quote]
Nicely done. This is one of the most important issues in science. The burden of proof is always on the claimant. It is not up to those who question a claim to disprove anything.
[/quote]
Yes, nicely done indeed… in fact,… let’s look at things this way…
Traditional, acceleration based, training has endless studies that scientifically support increases in strength and size (in addition to endless anecdotal reports as well).
On the other hand, SS training has ONLY anecdotal reports, and NONE seem to come from anyone who has built a sufficiently respectable degree of strength or size in the process (and no scientific reports that support it in any way)… well, that should be that then (but yet again, I’m sure it won’t be -lol)
S[/quote]
I do have to admit though, there would be something very amusing about watching a 300+ lbs behemoth taking 30 seconds to bench X amount of weight for 1 rep…that would get some serious “wtf” looks.
[quote]Academy wrote:
The term ‘Science’ has been used quite frequently in the last few posts, I feel that in order for something to be scientifically proven it must be able to be reproduced and measurable. So if we look at the protocol of SS in itself - we have a training stimulus which can be completely reproduced down to the final second of stimulus and reproduced time and time again to exact standards.
Try to impose the same demand on regular rep and training methods used in other training models - this is impossible as it is based upon too many factors of varying rep speeds, no. of reps, weight shifted, vast variety of exercises (I predict that you all have a different leg or back routine which you enjoy and vary it every few weeks…therefore none of these can be reproduced or accurately measured - only your results can be. This brings us to the crux of the discussion…results.
[/quote]
SS is not more easily reproduced or measurable than more traditional training models. We can prescribe all sorts of rep cadences other than SS to keep the rep tempo constant. We can prescribe all sorts of percentages of 1RM to keep the loading constant. We can set the frequency of training to keep it constant. We can prescribe a specific set of exercises regardless of the training type to keep that constant. etc…etc…etc…
In fact, that’s pretty much what all of the lifting studies do. Some even prescribe specific nutritional guidelines to keep that constant.
Now, if you’re talking about real world examples, then yes there is a fair amount of variation between them. The thing is, like people have been saying, there is also a fair amount that they have in common. One such similarity is that NONE of them train in a SS fashion.
Firstly, there is more to reaching one’s genetic potential than purely their lifting program. Nutrition for example is going to have a huuuuge limiting factor on whether someone reaches their genetic potential or not, regardless of training program.
Secondly, just stop using the word science. You don’t seem to have much understanding of how the scientific community actually studies kinesiology or what the term means in this context.
[quote]
Will there ever be a competitive BB who has only succeeded due to SS, well firstly you need several hundred (with varying genetics) to try. Does this disprove the effectiveness of SS for the masses who are not in the small % of competitive specialists - No of course not. If I was the only one to make gains with this method I would still disagree with the majority of you who find nothing that it is good for, simply because its good for me and as I am not trying to sell any books, then that’s what counts. What’s good for you?[/quote]
Firstly, super slow training has been around since 1982. That’s plenty of time for several hundred (probably more like hundreds of thousands) of aspiring bodybuilders to have tried it and seen what types of results that it gave them. You are kidding yourself if you think that at least several hundred (again, the number is probably much, much higher than that) aspiring bodybuilders haven’t tried it and not stuck with it due to them getting inferior results to more traditional and proven effective types of training.
Secondly, the people who actually make it pro (whether natural or assisted) often times have the best genetics out of the people who aspire to be bodybuilders for things like muscle size, shape, recovery abilities, strength, etc… If super slow really was a superior method of training and could work better for someone with lesser genetic traits, then it would work even better for those with superior genetic traits. Yet, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, all known professional bodybuilders (natural or otherwise) to date since the invention of super slow training have not chosen to stick to or use super slow training as their preferred method of lifting.
So, the argument that it’s better for the masses is a pretty weak one as well. Perhaps the idea that the decreased frequency of lifting and volume associated with the program (though I suspect that it’s too extreme a decrease for all but those on the very low end of the bell curve) would work better for those with lesser recovery abilities/greater life stresses/less optimal nutritional habits has some merit. But the actual lifting cadence has nothing to do with that.[/quote]
As an overview: How often are these ‘consistent studies’ continued for several years without any plateaus met? The majority of all closely monitored studies last for months not years as subjects are not so willing to commit their lives to this:)
I agree that nutrition guidelines should also remain strictly maintained - but again how often has this been achieved over the course of years in coordination with training regime. As you have rightly mentioned nutrition is a essential factor.
I agree that using the term science is not preferable - I only mentioned it as many prior to me had - as a graduate in sports science, my understanding of biomechanics is not limited. Many, many thousands of trainers have all tried SS, however back to my reference, after they initially discovered a predicted decrease in power and strength over the first few months - how many continued for several years without deviation until their progression with SS peaked and no further gains were made. It takes some serious faith in the protocols to continue when you are seeming to take a step back in order to move forward.
[quote]Academy wrote:
Many, many thousands of trainers have all tried SS, however back to my reference, after they initially discovered a predicted decrease in power and strength over the first few months - how many continued for several years without deviation until their progression with SS peaked and no further gains were made. It takes some serious faith in the protocols to continue when you are seeming to take a step back in order to move forward.
[/quote]
I myself, as well as several intermediate and advanced trainers have tried SS training on our own. All of us were ‘advanced’ enough to not be concerned about the amounts of weight we moved, so the ‘step backwards’ wasn’t a deterrent. What was an issue, was the lack of ANY size gains after several months’ time, and a noticeable degree of muscle LOSS. To me, that’s not moving forward.
Moving forward for most gym goers equates to increased size and strength, not being able to move a given weight (or more weight) at a slower pace. I applaud that you’re trying to discuss this intelligently, but with the lack of any REAL evidence, and no photos to accompany your anecdotal account, no one’s buying it.
Believe me, advanced competitive bodybuilders are all too willing to try ‘ridiculous’, nonconventional things if it may give them an edge. SS doesn’t sound crazy when first presented on paper (why I tried it myself!), so the fact that no pro BBer has stayed with it says something.
[quote]Academy wrote:
The term ‘Science’ has been used quite frequently in the last few posts, I feel that in order for something to be scientifically proven it must be able to be reproduced and measurable. So if we look at the protocol of SS in itself - we have a training stimulus which can be completely reproduced down to the final second of stimulus and reproduced time and time again to exact standards.
Try to impose the same demand on regular rep and training methods used in other training models - this is impossible as it is based upon too many factors of varying rep speeds, no. of reps, weight shifted, vast variety of exercises (I predict that you all have a different leg or back routine which you enjoy and vary it every few weeks…therefore none of these can be reproduced or accurately measured - only your results can be. This brings us to the crux of the discussion…results.
[/quote]
SS is not more easily reproduced or measurable than more traditional training models. We can prescribe all sorts of rep cadences other than SS to keep the rep tempo constant. We can prescribe all sorts of percentages of 1RM to keep the loading constant. We can set the frequency of training to keep it constant. We can prescribe a specific set of exercises regardless of the training type to keep that constant. etc…etc…etc…
In fact, that’s pretty much what all of the lifting studies do. Some even prescribe specific nutritional guidelines to keep that constant.
Now, if you’re talking about real world examples, then yes there is a fair amount of variation between them. The thing is, like people have been saying, there is also a fair amount that they have in common. One such similarity is that NONE of them train in a SS fashion.
Firstly, there is more to reaching one’s genetic potential than purely their lifting program. Nutrition for example is going to have a huuuuge limiting factor on whether someone reaches their genetic potential or not, regardless of training program.
Secondly, just stop using the word science. You don’t seem to have much understanding of how the scientific community actually studies kinesiology or what the term means in this context.
Obviously very few, regardless of what they were studying, span several years time. That’s one of the problems with using studies as the only source of information and not taking into account anecdotal evidence.
Even the ones that last only months though can still provide evidence to either support or weaken claims/hypotheses about different training protocols.
Again, not very often (if ever). Let’s face it, there just isn’t much funding or interest (from the scientific community) in building professional bodybuilders.
That’s again why we need to look at the people who have actually built such physiques and try to find out what it was that they did to get there. Once again why we should listen to what Tate is saying, in that video that was posted, about asking those who got there how they got there and not being fooled by the so called “gurus” who have never built an impressive physique (either on themselves or others) who want to push their “superior” training methodologies.
Ok then, sorry about the lack of understanding comment. I’m glad you agree that using the term science in this context is a poor choice of wording. The way you worded your previous post made it seem like your concept of science was a little off, but I realize that this is the internet and it’s easy to misinterpret what others are trying to say at times.
And who could really blame them?
If I said to you, “I have this great new investment strategy. Initially it’s going to decrease the value of your investments, but from there the rate of increase will be steady, and eventually (in a few years) your investment value will reach the value that you started out with. But when you reach it this time, you’ll be using a much more “scientific” method of investing. Either that or you can continue investing with your current strategy and in the same time period increase the value of your investments by a substantial amount, albeit in a less “scientific” manner.”
Which would you choose?
Now, if this person had built an impressive amount of wealth (and reproduced that feat numerous times with other people’s wealth as well), then it might be worth giving it a shot, right? But, if this person just said “well, my method is more scientifically valid because the pythagorean theorem states that a2+b2=c2, therefore my method is superior”. Would you still listen to them?
Wouldn’t it make sense that if someone was getting better results with a different method, which had created the results they were looking for in other people’s bodies numerous times in the past, that if they tried out a method which gave them lesser results, they would stick to the first method?
And besides, what is to say that even if they stuck to the second method and eventually worked back up to the weights they were using before starting the second method, that they would notice a distinct increase in muscle size once they got there? Their muscles technically aren’t experiencing any greater magnitude in terms of loading (in fact, it would probably still be less due to the decrease in acceleration associated with SS), only a longer duration of loading. If duration was the primary component in muscle size, then athletes like marathon runners and long distance swimmers would be the most muscular among athletes because their duration of loading is the greatest. Clearly this isn’t the case.
If I said to you, “I have this great new investment strategy. Initially it’s going to decrease the value of your investments, but from there the rate of increase will be steady, and eventually (in a few years) your investment value will reach the value that you started out with. But when you reach it this time, you’ll be using a much more “scientific” method of investing. Either that or you can continue investing with your current strategy and in the same time period increase the value of your investments by a substantial amount, albeit in a less “scientific” manner.”
Which would you choose?
Now, if this person had built an impressive amount of wealth (and reproduced that feat numerous times with other people’s wealth as well), then it might be worth giving it a shot, right? But, if this person just said “well, my method is more scientifically valid because the pythagorean theorem states that a2+b2=c2, therefore my method is superior”. Would you still listen to them?
Wouldn’t it make sense that if someone was getting better results with a different method, which had created the results they were looking for in other people’s bodies numerous times in the past, that if they tried out a method which gave them lesser results, they would stick to the first method?
And besides, what is to say that even if they stuck to the second method and eventually worked back up to the weights they were using before starting the second method, that they would notice a distinct increase in muscle size once they got there? Their muscles technically aren’t experiencing any greater magnitude in terms of loading (in fact, it would probably still be less due to the decrease in acceleration associated with SS), only a longer duration of loading. If duration was the primary component in muscle size, then athletes like marathon runners and long distance swimmers would be the most muscular among athletes because their duration of loading is the greatest. Clearly this isn’t the case.[/quote]
Bad analogy. Wealth is a product of the mind; muscle tissue a product of DNA.
If I said to you, “I have this great new investment strategy. Initially it’s going to decrease the value of your investments, but from there the rate of increase will be steady, and eventually (in a few years) your investment value will reach the value that you started out with. But when you reach it this time, you’ll be using a much more “scientific” method of investing. Either that or you can continue investing with your current strategy and in the same time period increase the value of your investments by a substantial amount, albeit in a less “scientific” manner.”
Which would you choose?
Now, if this person had built an impressive amount of wealth (and reproduced that feat numerous times with other people’s wealth as well), then it might be worth giving it a shot, right? But, if this person just said “well, my method is more scientifically valid because the pythagorean theorem states that a2+b2=c2, therefore my method is superior”. Would you still listen to them?
Wouldn’t it make sense that if someone was getting better results with a different method, which had created the results they were looking for in other people’s bodies numerous times in the past, that if they tried out a method which gave them lesser results, they would stick to the first method?
And besides, what is to say that even if they stuck to the second method and eventually worked back up to the weights they were using before starting the second method, that they would notice a distinct increase in muscle size once they got there? Their muscles technically aren’t experiencing any greater magnitude in terms of loading (in fact, it would probably still be less due to the decrease in acceleration associated with SS), only a longer duration of loading. If duration was the primary component in muscle size, then athletes like marathon runners and long distance swimmers would be the most muscular among athletes because their duration of loading is the greatest. Clearly this isn’t the case.[/quote]
Bad analogy. Wealth is a product of the mind; muscle tissue a product of DNA. [/quote]
??
Your DNA may detail how big you can absolutely get, but it in no way controls any and all muscle gain…so what are you talking about? Your effort and consistency in the gym and kitchen have more to do with your muscle gain than simply your “DNA”.
That means his analogy isn’t bad. You just don’t know what you are talking about.
