It seems like every article I read the author mentions his disdain for scientific research regarding strength training or the people doing the scientific research regarding strength training.
My question is when did we become so ignorant?
I agree with the notion that someone doesn’t have to understand every chemical reaction in the human body during a training session to be an effective personal trainer, but why is there such disregard for research and researchers.
There must be good studies going on out there somewhere. I mean, their results aren’t being published in any of the NSCA publications, but they have to be going on out there somewhere.
I think the reason all the NSCA publications suck is my fault. Ben Bruno published an article on single leg training last year. In this article he said single leg training should be kept in the rep range of 6-10…or something like that. I tried to post a pdf of some article claiming single leg training to have similar or almost identical physiological effects to bilateral leg training.
Ever since then NSCA publications have sucked. I think the NSCA is a bunch of cronies trying to maintain their business advantage. They’ve turned into this secret society where only the people willing to keep the legit research under lock and key get the worthwhile information. For all I know the best researchers on the NSCA are butt buddies with big wigs at tnation. The NSCA people that are in the know only let little bits and pieces out in one on one or small group training sessions and no two clients or athletes ever hear the same information.
That sounds like a stupid way to train clients.
I’m just trying to come up with an explanation why there’s no good scientific research out there anymore.
I think a legitimate explanation might be the desire for researchers to get something published. With no regard for the quality of information. “I have 4 published papers!!! I’m…kind of…a big deal”.
So why is there such disdain for research regarding training and researchers conducting research regarding training? Because their is no unbiased organization which aims to keep every tidbit of information flowing to anyone that wants to learn it.
All we have to go on for training advice is suggestions from guys that have 900lb free squats and body builders that have won contests. Whether or not they’re on steroids or not we’ll never know.
I remember one time I tried this calf workout that promised huge results by simply doing 100 body weight calf raises a day. The pictures in the articles showed guys with cows. It took me about 6 weeks to figure out that article was horseshit without steroids.
There needs to be a disclaimer at the top of every article that states whether or not you need to be on steroids to get the results the article promises. So until that day comes I’ll have to develop my discerning eye and form an opinion on whether or not the author advocates steroids for his clients or designs things tha work for people not using drugs.
If you want to do steroids that’s fine with me. It’s not my body and not my problem. If I did steroids I would love them too much and end up getting addicted to them. I’d get addicted to being strong as fuck, the constant progress, and be in love with muscle hyperplasia all at the cost of losing all my hair. So I’ve decided to stay away from steroids. I’d love them too much not to mention I already have poor impulse control and suffer from paranoia. So if I did steroids I’d likely develop some delusion, roid rage and then kill 20 people.
I only want to be able to tell whether or not an article is for someone on steroids or a natural lifter.
so a recap: I think tnation authors don’t like research because most of it is crap. The NSCA still sucks. I won’t do steroids. I want to be able to tell whether or not I need to do steroids to get the results a tnation article promises.