Well, hey, I’m not the one who waited 38 posts to get the point…
But I might add, that lifting weights to failure once or twice might seem comparable to a stimulus that might have been experienced by very early man, rather that 10 sets of 10.
It might, but we have no way of knowing?
How do we know who was more jacked, the skilled hunter who did one all out violent burst and got the kill on the first try every time because of skill or luck, or the one who did multiple violent bursts, because sometimes the kill gets away and only got it on the 10th try. Hes basically doing caveman GVT right?
You seem to have this idealised view of what hunting is in nature, but it doesn’t sound like you actually watch many nature programs. Just last night I watched a Puma (on TV obviously) take 5 or 6 attempt to take down some game. Each one was a sprint, violent burst and struggle, but Im telling you now it definitely wasnt low volume.
2 Likes
OK, so, if I’m getting this right, this means we’re allowed to go back to talking about the lions and the leopards, right?..
If so, then yes. I get your point.
I betcha his frequency is real low though.
41 by my count. And it wasn’t my point to make, if you’d said the following in your first post instead of forty first, this thread could have been shut down a lot quicker.
There’s a lot of “mights” in there. We don’t have any reason to believe that any of these statements are true. We also don’t have any reason to believe that very early man had a physique or strength level we should aspire to so your theory fails on literally every level.
But its such a pretty story that validates his training philosophy? That’s got to count for something?
2 Likes
I’d rather see the “I did this and got big and strong” story. Less pretty pictures, more usuable information.
1 Like
Agreed, if we’re not even going to try and use science and logic to inform our choices then ‘I did this and it worked’ is definitely second best.
Thanks homie. It does…
I know. The key word, though, is “story”.
1 Like
That is science and logic, albeit in a very small sample size
Its the first step, observation, of the scientific method.
Are you a scientist by training? I’m sure it’s been mentioned before but my memory is much better with numbers.
Ha no, finance guy by training, but I listen to exercise science podcasts for a couple hours a day.
1 Like
Do you also listen to podcasts at more than normal speed? My app has me capped out at 2x but I’m sure I could go faster still.
Ok, last chance, before I drop it. I promise:
What do we know:
Humans have evolved with large brains that consume a large amount of energy, both to grow the brain and for it to function.
There is a large consequent trade-off in strength, compared to chimps for example.
For a human to get jacked is probably in evolutionary terms an anomaly, an adaptation to an unusual set of circumstances.
These unusual circumstances probably involve a combination of minimal mental stress and some high level of physical demands, since this is the reverse of the prevailing conditions that led us to evolve as big brained endurance runners.
Here’s where I start to stretch. Why would we respond to, say, one major exertion or set of exertions a week, compared to one every day. I’m guessing it’s because our brains and bodies just aren’t cut out for kicking ass every day, neurologically and physiologically. And I guess that the profile of the kind of environment that would have led a human to have become jacked in the past involved less sustained hard work than more, and more high intensity than less. If that’s just fupping obvious, then so be it.
Stories are a big part of how our mind patterns work, no?
As a “theory” it would for sure, but as a hypothesis I’d say there is a glimmer there…
We are talking about a hobby here. The strongest people I know have never lifted a barbell, they work for a living, manual labor. They do kick ass everyday. To group the human race into a small percentage of people who do this for fun is very short sighted.
2 Likes
It is yes, deliberately short sighted, or restricted, to people with a high level of hypertrophy. Hypertrophy kind of makes no sense for humans. I understand, from what little I know, that strength, like laborer strength, is driven as much if not more by neurological development, which can be developed through repetition at submaximal loads.
I suppose by “kicking ass” I meant maximal effort, to failure. No disrespect intended to people who actually work for a living.
1 Like
Because your understanding of evolution is severely lacking. Read up on Non-Mendelian genetics. And I mean read and learn. Once you reach the part about peacocks and sexual selection, you’re on the right track, and hopefully you’ll realize the flaw in your reasoning.
1 Like
Um. Okay. I will.