Bricknyce,
Thanks so much for posting this article. Unfortunately I wasn’t training when his previous articles were available on the internet. If you have any more of his old articles I’d be hugely grateful if you could either post them here or PM them to me…
Many thanks anyway,
Greg
Modok,
Yes, this is Exhibit A, an article that says absolutely nothing to me or others on here! That was PART II of an article series! You would think that by part II of an article, that the author would finally come to some type of conclusion for his thesis.
But what we got here was scientific, theoretical, philosphical drivel, things that have nothing to do with getting jacked! As stated above, I am SURE that Abel knows how to whip people into shape. However, I do not see the point of nearly all of his articles that I have read.
The article above simply states physiological findings with Abel’s interpretations of such research. I do not know what ANYTHING listed above has to do with program design.
GPUK,
You can find more of his articles at www.anabolicextreme.com. Check the old online issues. That site was good when it was run by Jason Mueller. You can also check out Abel’s writings on his blogs or just google him.
I have been informed by the mods here to not post such lengthy articles like the one above because it makes editing difficult. I may post some more links that I have seen.
Most of Scott’s stuff is copied and or slightly altered and then sold for more. Then if you ask him or others for advice they say shit like depends on your needs state…of course which requires personal coaching…
Any one who has read my posts knows that I am a big advocate of Vince Gironda style training and nutrition. Even in Vince’s day there was those that said that Vince ripped them off or as the years went on and the styles and diets went in other directions that was forgotten and Vince was left holding the shit bag of “that was bullshit” training…
Only to be touted later as the new training by someone anew…
Thib is a wise trainer that looks at old school and what science has to offer now, and it’s true that nothing is new only rediscovered or better understood…
Scott is a very good coach but for the price of just to sign up for his personal touch you can buy the complete works of vince Gironda like 3x over or get Thibaudeau’s books like 10x over…
It’s your call
I agree with Modok.
GPUK,
If you are a fan of his, I think you might like his blog. However, much of it is sociological and philosophical material that would make one’s head spin and question the meaning of life.
Here is a brief excerpt from his last blog entry. Keep in mind, I happen to be a nutritionist/registered dietitian myself and am finishing a nutrition masters and I have yet to understand what the points of this guy’s writings are.
"Another key aspect of modern brilliance is the non-acceptance of reductionist science as �??truth�?? in and of itself, and that wholes are always greater than the sum of their parts. The modern tendency toward �??isms�?? is categorizing many useful practices in ways that end up amounting to no more than ideologies masquerading as truth.
In this sense there is no such thing as Tao-ism. It cannot be surmised in that way as a category of truth, thought, or practice. It is a much greater and more profound whole than what can be captured even in discussion. For some of the more ethereal topics in life, mere discussion or delineation is a mode of reduction that negates its own wholeness. (For example trying to explain �??love�?? without context)
To make matters worse the modern trend has been to accept as truth what is anything but. I have been speaking a lot lately about paradigm blindness and its associated �??isms�?? Of these, scientism and within that, nutritionism are two accepted �??truths�?? that are as arrogantly employed as all of their previous ancestors which over time were proven either false or at least faulty.
The modern issue now is that nutrition study has turned into nutritionism, an ideology all its own, which does not stand on truth. And the same can be said of science, now becoming �??scientism�?? a false ideology that influences application, thought and practice based on little else but interpretations of questionable science of questionable scientists.
These are now huge industries. Industry has a need first and foremost to perpetuate itself. Industry is selfish, not self-less and that should always be kept in mind when consuming �??information�?? or propaganda in any form from any industry.
Tradition, which was faulty in and of itself, has now been replaced by scientism, which is just as faulty, when context is not considered. As an example I would like to address in greater depth the notion of �??nutrition-ism�?? in this month�??s blog.
In recent years at the top of the academic chain there has been a shift away from reductionist thought and toward looking at whole patterns rather than component parts. This is decidedly Tao as well whether labelled as such or not.
Science is still employed within that mode of investigation, but it more appropriately places science back as the horse before the cart within inquiry and investigation. The move is away from mechanistic reductionist approaches to more quantum understanding that focuses on relationships, contexts, flow, rhythms, connections etc.
We see and know that the body is more than a machine; it is more complex than what reductionist science would have us think. And yet the beauty is that within that complexity lays the simplicity that allowed man to flourish and adapt as a species."
Coming from an Abel fan, I can admit that some of what he says can seem vacuous, almost circular. That said, Scott is an academic writer and I think that we can all look back on our college days and remember reading convoluted texts and thinking, “WTF! Why doesn’t he just say what the hell he’s trying to say?!” Of course, this doesn’t dismiss the point that Scott could be more direct.
As you all know, when one takes an academic approach to writing, one has to be highly specific in a paradoxically run-about way. The reasons for this are many but generally relate to the point that the more you know, the more qualifications you have to put on statements to guarantee their truth.
For example, I could say, “You should always lift explosively”, and most of you wouldn’t have a problem with that. However, there exist certain conditions under which lifting explosively is not ideal.
As such, qualifications like, “Lifting explosively is the best approach when one is not in an accumulated fatigue state and one’s goals dictate an emphasis on neural efficiency, precluding slower tempos that focus solely on occlusion training” (Ref A, B, C, D, E) might be attached. And, of course, these qualifications get onerously complicated with experts in their areas of expertise.
Ugh, you all know this already so my apologies for subjecting you to my rambling. My point here is that Scott is very particular about what he’s talking about and takes his work very seriously.
I’ve been successful in implementing some of what he has to say, but I must admit that some of it still eludes me. That said, I do incrementally understand more and more.
Overall, perspectives that he is far from direct are very accurate.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
I think Abel is an educated man, as evidenced by his vocabulary. He obviously knows a ton about training as well. I think his biggest folly is he is absolutely scared to death that someone will use/copy/benefit from his original (in his opinion) ideas without paying him for them. He obviously thinks they are worthy of quite the high sticker price from the prices on his website.
Everything he has ever written on this site is just one big sales pitch for his services. Its a pity really; if he only opened up to the free market of ideas and expressed himself openly on this website, the money for his services would come pouring in. I think he seriously limits his earning potential by his coyness. [/quote]
I completely agree.
[quote]ovalpline wrote:
Coming from an Abel fan, I can admit that some of what he says can seem vacuous, almost circular. That said, Scott is an academic writer and I think that we can all look back on our college days and remember reading convoluted texts and thinking, “WTF! Why doesn’t he just say what the hell he’s trying to say?!” Of course, this doesn’t dismiss the point that Scott could be more direct.
As you all know, when one takes an academic approach to writing, one has to be highly specific in a paradoxically run-about way. The reasons for this are many but generally relate to the point that the more you know, the more qualifications you have to put on statements to guarantee their truth.
For example, I could say, “You should always lift explosively”, and most of you wouldn’t have a problem with that. However, there exist certain conditions under which lifting explosively is not ideal. As such, qualifications like, “Lifting explosively is the best approach when one is not in an accumulated fatigue state and one’s goals dictate an emphasis on neural efficiency, precluding slower tempos that focus solely on occlusion training” (Ref A, B, C, D, E) might be attached. And, of course, these qualifications get onerously complicated with experts in their areas of expertise.
Ugh, you all know this already so my apologies for subjecting you to my rambling. My point here is that Scott is very particular about what he’s talking about and takes his work very seriously.
I’ve been successful in implementing some of what he has to say, but I must admit that some of it still eludes me. That said, I do incrementally understand more and more.
Overall, perspectives that he is far from direct are very accurate.[/quote]
I see what you are saying. However, this is the reason why many people frown upon this element of academia, hence the reason why people often use the term “real world” or “when you enter the real world…”
I happen to be well versed in the life sciences after studying nearly all of them a bit in school, anat and phys, general chem, organic chem, biochem, and microbio. I also took math, biostatistics, research methodology, advanced nutrition metabolism, medical nutrition therapy, kines, and biomechanics.
I DO NOT say this to brag at all. I am stating this because despite my academic inclincations, I do not see the need to be nearly as pedantic as Abel is in his writings for fucking bodybuilding publications.
Some of my favorite authors, such as Lonnie Lowery, John Berardi, Tom Venuto, and CT have neen cererabl in their writings but this was more so to give some background and to state their general theses in articles, not to be pedantic or to have the reader sift through ESOTERIC information.
Allow me to repeat myself again, these are fucking bodybuilding publications, not peer reviewed scientific journal publications. I say, if you are going to write something, write something useable for readers. I do not know why some authors do not realize that they are writing for the general public, some of whom might simply be stock brokers, lawyers, cops, firemen, 16 to 18 year olds, or any other element of society that does not have proficiency in the life sciences, but who simply want to get jacked!
Even Berardi once stated in an interview that when he met a reader once, who happened to be a 160 lber that was rambling him a blitz of questions regarding the minutia of training and nutrition, he felt that he had let down some of his readers. This was because he had perhaps swayed this newbie from what was important and what could be regarded as minutia.
Its not that the guy is even convoluted in discussing the life sciences nutrition and exercise science. He is convoluted in sociology and philosophy. I do not see the place for this here. If someone could explain to me its place, I am welcome to hear it, in all seriousness.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
ovalpline wrote:
Coming from an Abel fan, I can admit that some of what he says can seem vacuous, almost circular. That said, Scott is an academic writer and I think that we can all look back on our college days and remember reading convoluted texts and thinking, “WTF! Why doesn’t he just say what the hell he’s trying to say?!” Of course, this doesn’t dismiss the point that Scott could be more direct.
As you all know, when one takes an academic approach to writing, one has to be highly specific in a paradoxically run-about way. The reasons for this are many but generally relate to the point that the more you know, the more qualifications you have to put on statements to guarantee their truth.
For example, I could say, “You should always lift explosively”, and most of you wouldn’t have a problem with that. However, there exist certain conditions under which lifting explosively is not ideal. As such, qualifications like, “Lifting explosively is the best approach when one is not in an accumulated fatigue state and one’s goals dictate an emphasis on neural efficiency, precluding slower tempos that focus solely on occlusion training” (Ref A, B, C, D, E) might be attached. And, of course, these qualifications get onerously complicated with experts in their areas of expertise.
Ugh, you all know this already so my apologies for subjecting you to my rambling. My point here is that Scott is very particular about what he’s talking about and takes his work very seriously.
I’ve been successful in implementing some of what he has to say, but I must admit that some of it still eludes me. That said, I do incrementally understand more and more.
Overall, perspectives that he is far from direct are very accurate.
I see what you are saying. However, this is the reason why many people frown upon this element of academia, hence the reason why people often use the term “real world” or “when you enter the real world…” I happen to be well versed in the life sciences after studying nearly all of them a bit in school, anat and phys, general chem, organic chem, biochem, and microbio.
I also took math, biostatistics, research methodology, advanced nutrition metabolism, medical nutrition therapy, kines, and biomechanics. I DO NOT say this to brag at all. I am stating this because despite my academic inclincations, I do not see the need to be nearly as pedantic as Abel is in his writings for fucking bodybuilding publications.
Some of my favorite authors, such as Lonnie Lowery, John Berardi, Tom Venuto, and CT have neen cererabl in their writings but this was more so to give some background and to state their general theses in articles, not to be pedantic or to have the reader sift through ESOTERIC information.
Allow me to repeat myself again, these are fucking bodybuilding publications, not peer reviewed scientific journal publications. I say, if you are going to write something, write something useable for readers. I do not know why some authors do not realize that they are writing for the general public, some of whom might simply be stock brokers, lawyers, cops, firemen, 16 to 18 year olds, or any other element of society that does not have proficiency in the life sciences, but who simply want to get jacked!
Even Berardi once stated in an interview that when he met a reader once, who happened to be a 160 lber that was rambling him a blitz of questions regarding the minutia of training and nutrition, he felt that he had let down some of his readers. This was because he had perhaps swayed this newbie from what was important and what could be regarded as minutia.
Its not that the guy is even convoluted in discussing the life sciences nutrition and exercise science. He is convoluted in sociology and philosophy. I do not see the place for this here. If someone could explain to me its place, I am welcome to hear it, in all seriousness. [/quote]
LOL yeah, no argument from me on anything you’ve written; he definitely does talk out of left-field. I wonder though if this is because he’s talking more to a select group of fitness/bodybuilding competitors who, as a consequence of extremes in training and diet, have developed maladaptive obsessive compulsions.
Of course, this does not necessarily account for the heavy language he uses in his more general training articles, but my guess is that it takes a certain kind of expert (with corresponding thought processes and writing styles) to deal with obsessive compulsives and that this permeates his other work.
[quote]drewh wrote:
Look at your develepment compared to him and his clients nuff said[/quote]
You have obviously never seen a picture of Scott Abel or any of his clients. Takes all sorts I guess.
Sigh…
Interesting archived read, nothing that really turns my world upside down or teaches anything relevant.
I studied Philosophy in college. Not the weird Eastern stuff, but the logical Anglo-American kind. If I learned anything it’s that clarity and lucidity are key.
After reading some of the most dense texts ever written (a lot of Kant) I’ve learned that no one will consider your argument or theory if they have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
This seems to be Mr. Abel’s problem.
What is Kant all about? Can you answer this with clarity, lucidity, and less than 10 words?
[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
What is Kant all about? Can you answer this with clarity, lucidity, and less than 10 words?[/quote]
Depends on the topics. Nature of knowledge or morality?
Kant a philosopher, he compromised between empiricism and rationalism. Scott Able loses me with his writing style but his youtube videos have been beneficial to me, and his advice on work the muscles not the weights has also been helpful to me.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
I could possibly weigh the debate on whether Scott’s work is being duplicated by other authors except Scott has never given us ANYTHING of a concrete nature on his methods.
All of his articles are written in abstraction; philosophy rather than actual program design. He drones on and on about the meaning of "intensity and the drawbacks of timing your rest period, but he never actually says anything concrete about his theories.
He did give up a few specifics on two specialization workouts (back and legs), but that hardly qualifies for even a 6 week training cycle. It seems like he is only trying to pique interest with his articles enough for us to go purchase his training books and videos. Thats fair enough, as everyone needs to make a living, but his material is outragously priced. 139 dollars for a paperback BOOK. 199 dollars for a VIDEO? I’m very interested in his theories on training but that kind of cost is completely prohibitive, and I do have discretionary income these days. IF he simply lowered his price to what the other fine coaches charge, I’m sure his business would take off.
But thats just my opinion. As it stands I will just keep reading articles on T-Nation, and wait for Abel to come around.[/quote]
I hardly ever post, but felt I had to, to add that I thought, after reading his articles, he might be worth investing in - so I paid for the Cycle diet dvd.
Guess what? He talks about its effects and what you can expect on it, but doesn’t tell you it!!!
Fuck buying ANYTHING else of his.