He’s got a bit of a point (especially to my OCD / overthinking personality) 
2 Likes
One might be surprised how simple the programs of the best bodybuilders and powerlifters have been.
6 Likes
I think important thing is to note the difference of theory and application. Pondering the theory, and figuring out why’s and how’s is important, since it’s better to have more than anecdotal evidence.
But the application should be pretty simple. Sufficient stimulus (hard training) with sufficient resources (food and sleep) for adaptation to happen. That’s pretty much it.
”Scientific” training does not need to be any more complex than ”common sense” training. The people who claim otherwise try to market something.
I follow same principle with the nutrition.
1 Like
Very true, I very much enjoy understanding how all this works, but as far as what works, almost any program can work if used consistently, it’s mostly about people’s response to training when looking at results. We can find so many large muscled people who used anything from HIT, to HD, to power lifting, to CFT, … powerlifters, athletes, gymnasts, bodybuilders, … most of the things we worry about might alter our muscle size by a tiny bit, but none of these things are going to be the difference between a 14 inch arm vs an 18 inch arm.
3 Likes
Even the gimmick routines work if followed consistently, lol
1 Like
Also, when we look at some popular routines and not list sets and reps, we see they look very similar.
Looking at DC, Jordan Peters, Lyle McDonald’s GBR, 5/3/1, Charles Staley’s movement-pattern, and a few others, we see they look alike.
Here’s a sample DC upper-body workout without reps and sets listed:
Bench press
Overhead press
Lat pulldown
Row
Triceps extension
Here’s a sample GBR upper-body workout without reps and sets listed:
Bench press
Overhead press
Lat pulldown
Dumbbell row
Triceps extension
Barbell curl
Here’s a sample 5/3/1 upper-body workout without reps and sets listed:
Overhead press
Dips
Pullups
Tricep extension
Bar curls
Perhaps the saying “same shit, different day” applies.
With that said, I do appreciate what science-oriented people offer and my own training in middle age has less of the copy-and-past flavor it did in the past. I don’t make it too complicated but there is some stuff I include now that I didn’t do much of in the past.
2 Likes
Some weekly or daily progression, relying mostly on multi-joint movements and accounting the SRA -cycle are something that 99% of programs do.
If these are present, and one does put effort in and outside the gym, it’s really hard to go wrong.
I’m personally a guy who likes to tinker about training, but usually my training is pretty simple. Simple programs are good, since then you can focus on what’s important: effort and recovery.
Hard training is smart training - Chad Wesley Smith
1 Like
I’ve gotten to the point where I whole heartedly feel that biomechanics and proper exercise execution is far more important than the programming(as long as your programming is sensible that is, but most popular programs are).
10 Likes
Ironic that you chose a CWS quote. He started Juggernaut systems that makes use of periodization, macro/mesocycles, percentages, and phases like accumulation, intensification, realization, and deloads. Which makes sense for powerlifters and athletes.
However, it was from him that Mike Israetel essentially copied his whole system, and he is who started the whole science-based, optimal training, periodization for bodybuilding that is BS.
1 Like
Yeah. I have ”scientific principles of strength training” in my bookshelf.
Not sure that Israetel copied anything though, he made that book with Chad.
I can’t say if periodization is BS for bodybuilding, since I don’t know much about BB, hahah. He definitely uses a lot of ”science marketing” though.
There’s a reason the stereotype is “dumb jock”.
Getting big and strong NEVER required superior intellect. It didn’t require overthinking. We have historical records of dudes accomplishing ridiculous physical feats prior to the creation of indoor plumbing and in eras where mercury was used as medicine and blood letting was a go to method of healing.
In 1967, TWO men were able to bench press over 600lbs raw. The bench press itself was a recent invention, and these men were benching on benches that looked like something a second rate boy scout fashioned together out of leftover wood pallets. One of these men was Pat Casey, who swore by meatloaf sandwiches slathered in mayo between sets. In the 58 years since that time, with all the advances we’ve had in drugs, science, nutrition (meatloaf sandwiches still rock btw), training equipment itself and the sheer talent pool surge, we STILL haven’t seen that record go up a full 200lbs, and a raw 600lb bench is STILL incredible.
Science is cool and all, but we already “know” how to get big and strong, and for the most part it’s keeping your head down and sticking with it for several years.
5 Likes
Popped up on my feed today.
2 Likes
Yeah. There’s no arcane knowledge of how to get big and strong.
Science and other stuff you listed has made training probably more intelligent, but you still need to be ready to work harder and work more than you would want if you want to get better.
I’m a huge advocate of scientific and philosophical thinking in general, but in the context of training seeking some vague idea of ”optimality” might actually deviate you from the important stuff. Some people seem to use the stuff as an excuse for avoiding the suffering they would need to put in.
”Bad” program done with super hard effort will always beat ”optimal” programming with half ass effort.
2 Likes
Oh my goodness yes. We so often see the exact opposite of this on these forums.
1 Like
true!
good points, most programs are so similar, just a twist on the volume, loads and frequency. In reality, people each have their own tolerances for all the variables, the best program is just the one that a person ‘can use the best’. One person likes failure stuff, another gets burned out too much on it, one person loves heavy loads, another person’s joints can’t handle it. etc.
3 Likes
This is sarcasm. If you’re watching this and doing anything other than laughing at it, then you’re doing it wrong. It does not contain actual advice.
It’s like watching anchorman and using that as a format to go out and try to break into the News Broadcasting world.
1 Like
We used “My Cousin Vinnie” as our reference material in a law class.
2 Likes
ha
We used it in sex ed
1 Like
K.I.S.S : Keep it simple stupid
Ever since I stopped overthinking training, nutrition and chasing what was most “optimal” everything started “clicking”.
Funny how thinking less makes things make sense.
1 Like