That sounds like a cheat code to injury
Iāll have a medial delt pump just by doing DB bench ahahah. I even have some delt and chest pump by doing back work
Exactly why Iām doing running or rowing when trying to increase my cardio, not bicycling or such
1 Like
Like I said I throw it out as a hypothetical thought.
Its REALLY interesting. I like it. I think it has real legs. But its ultimately a bit difficult to prove as I say.
Yeah - scientist are not known for their fondness of exercise. I mean how many of the Manhattan Project could bench press their own body weight?
I mean its a very used stereotype. But its kinda true.
However as the sports as entertainment economy get bigger and better - so will the funding and the research. But (in my humble opinion) it needs a common sense director for each project. So when some 45 year old lab rat whoās only ever seen a gym from the out side or in photos wants to run an experiment - some old school gym rat can step in and steer them the right way.
1 Like
Definitely true, and helpful to an extent. I think thereās still an endemic issue with interpersonal variability though. Youāll see a study say supplement x or training method y resulting in +5% 1RM or gain in lbm, but across the individuals in the study you will see individuals at +10 or 15%, and some with negative results. I think to a point humans are too complex to isolate variables as much as is necessary for the popular research methodologies to use. They might try to match things like calories or calorie surpplus to isolate the effect of a training style, but we all know how many other factors there are (sleep, stress, training history, genetics, accumulated fatigue, injury, placebo and simply whether they like that type of training to name a few) that canāt all be controlled for. The only way around that, without raising clones in perfect social isolation star wars style, in the current methodology is absolutely huge numbers of participants.
So unless the china and CCP really wants to know whether submaximal training results in better results over a 12 month training cycle than training to failure, enough to test it on their athlete camps, I donāt see us finding out.
1 Like
Yeahā¦ there is zero way to actually prove it .
1 Like
Which actually reminds me of another limitation to the research, most notably in training research, is timeframe.
i.e Knowing that training to failure gives better strength gains over submax training over 6 or 8 weeks is very little practical value to someone who is actually training long term, because it gives absolutely no indication of whether those gains are sustainable long term, or whether all you did was peak those āathletesā.
2 Likes
Its a hypothesis I subscribe to. Also without any real evidence.
1 Like
Hmmā¦ is it wrong to call inconstancy claims in individual post? Came across one in another thread and something seems off based on what they posted in the past,
Flame Free:
Had a double ButterBurger deluxe from Culverās yesterday. I donāt regret it.
2 Likes
Bought pop tarts for my little bro and noticed that thereās the option to eat them frozen. He tried and liked it. I donāt like pop tarts but now I want to try 
Name the thread?- I finished math hw yesterday and now have too much free time 
It was a knee jerk reaction at the time on my part.
1 Like
Iām keeping this vague as hell butā¦
1 Like
I, too, saw the new coaching forum.
6 Likes
We have a new coach? Iāll take a lookā¦
1 Like
Well thatās interesting 
I confess I do not completely understand it
1 Like
In this case you wonātā¦
2 Likes