[quote]tsantos wrote:
Because you can do everything which science tells you, make good progress and some fucker will make far better progress in spite of himself. His word becomes gospel.[/quote]
Maybe your understanding of science sucks. Or you lack the ability to apply science while taking into account the many variables of human biology.
Which would make what you think you know… bro science.
Or maybe you just don’t work as hard as the fucker.
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
The vast majority of people in the fitness industry are not intelligent, or at least they don’t understand science. The most frequent transgression is treating correlation as causation. [/quote]
I think this claim is insulting to the industry. I don’t feel that the lifting community is any more or less intelligent than most others. I also feel like the lack of understanding of science and rational thinking is something that’s true everywhere, and the cause of far more serious issues than bro science.
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
I think this claim is insulting to the industry. I don’t feel that the lifting community is any more or less intelligent than most others. I also feel like the lack of understanding of science and rational thinking is something that’s true everywhere, and the cause of far more serious issues than bro science.
[/quote]
+1
Very well said.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]tsantos wrote:
Because you can do everything which science tells you, make good progress and some fucker will make far better progress in spite of himself. His word becomes gospel.[/quote]
Maybe your understanding of science sucks. Or you lack the ability to apply science while taking into account the many variables of human biology.
Which would make what you think you know… bro science.
Or maybe you just don’t work as hard as the fucker.[/quote]
Maybe… but I think his point is that genetics plays a huge role in muscular development, which is pretty indisputable, right?
I always think about this kid in my class in high school who was jacked and lean at 14 before he ever picked up a weight. Then he started playing football and lifting and got a lot bigger. Did he just work harder than everyone else or understand science better?
[quote]craze9 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]tsantos wrote:
Because you can do everything which science tells you, make good progress and some fucker will make far better progress in spite of himself. His word becomes gospel.[/quote]
Maybe your understanding of science sucks. Or you lack the ability to apply science while taking into account the many variables of human biology.
Which would make what you think you know… bro science.
Or maybe you just don’t work as hard as the fucker.[/quote]
Maybe… but I think his point is that genetics plays a huge role in muscular development, which is pretty indisputable, right?
I always think about this kid in my class in high school who was jacked and lean at 14 before he ever picked up a weight. Then he started playing football and lifting and got a lot bigger. Did he just work harder than everyone else or understand science better?
[/quote]
How often do you see these genetic freaks? How would you know they are freaks unless, like the kid in your class, you watched their starting point and on-going developement?
I wouldn’t assume that someone progresses faster than me because of genetics just because his methods don’t jive with my own understanding of “science”. I would question my own methods and work ethic first.
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
The vast majority of people in the fitness industry are not intelligent, or at least they don’t understand science. The most frequent transgression is treating correlation as causation. [/quote]
I think this claim is insulting to the industry. I don’t feel that the lifting community is any more or less intelligent than most others. I also feel like the lack of understanding of science and rational thinking is something that’s true everywhere, and the cause of far more serious issues than bro science.
[/quote]
I agree 100% with your last point. It’s an epidemic in the medical field too, for example.
What’s insulting to the industry? I never compared it to anything else. You did.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
How often do you see these genetic freaks? How would you know they are freaks unless, like the kid in your class, you watched their starting point and on-going developement?
I wouldn’t assume that someone progresses faster than me because of genetics just because his methods don’t jive with my own understanding of “science”. I would question my own methods and work ethic first.[/quote]
Point taken. You’re right, you generally don’t know what someone’s genetics are, and even if you do, it’s not useful info re: your own training progress.
I personally had a phase (lasting quite a few years) where I’d kind of look down on guys at the gym doing “light” “pump” “bodybuilding” work, or weird exercises, anything outside of what I considered the “right” way to lift, even if they were jacked! “They’re only big” because of genetics, or AAS. Pretty stupid in hindsight, but it can be tempting to make the assumption that others getting results are genetically gifted or anabolically enhanced when the alternative is that your own methods and training beliefs need to be re-assessed.
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
The vast majority of people in the fitness industry are not intelligent, or at least they don’t understand science. The most frequent transgression is treating correlation as causation. [/quote]
I think this claim is insulting to the industry. I don’t feel that the lifting community is any more or less intelligent than most others. I also feel like the lack of understanding of science and rational thinking is something that’s true everywhere, and the cause of far more serious issues than bro science.
[/quote]
I agree 100% with your last point. It’s an epidemic in the medical field too, for example.
What’s insulting to the industry? I never compared it to anything else. You did.
[/quote]
I was objecting to the phrase “the vast majority of people in the fitness industry are not intelligent”. It may be that we have different thresholds of “intelligence”, either way I think we agree on the whole.
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
The vast majority of people in the fitness industry are not intelligent, or at least they don’t understand science. The most frequent transgression is treating correlation as causation. [/quote]
I think this claim is insulting to the industry. I don’t feel that the lifting community is any more or less intelligent than most others. I also feel like the lack of understanding of science and rational thinking is something that’s true everywhere, and the cause of far more serious issues than bro science.
[/quote]
I agree 100% with your last point. It’s an epidemic in the medical field too, for example.
What’s insulting to the industry? I never compared it to anything else. You did.
[/quote]
I was objecting to the phrase “the vast majority of people in the fitness industry are not intelligent”. It may be that we have different thresholds of “intelligence”, either way I think we agree on the whole.[/quote]
To fix the quote, it should say “the vast majority of people…are not intelligent.”
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
The vast majority of people in the fitness industry are not intelligent, or at least they don’t understand science. The most frequent transgression is treating correlation as causation. [/quote]
I think this claim is insulting to the industry. I don’t feel that the lifting community is any more or less intelligent than most others. I also feel like the lack of understanding of science and rational thinking is something that’s true everywhere, and the cause of far more serious issues than bro science.
[/quote]
I agree 100% with your last point. It’s an epidemic in the medical field too, for example.
What’s insulting to the industry? I never compared it to anything else. You did.
[/quote]
I was objecting to the phrase “the vast majority of people in the fitness industry are not intelligent”. It may be that we have different thresholds of “intelligence”, either way I think we agree on the whole.[/quote]
To fix the quote, it should say “the vast majority of people…are not intelligent.” [/quote]
I think the problem is that the vast majority of people are taught what to think rather than being taught how to think.
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
The vast majority of people in the fitness industry are not intelligent, or at least they don’t understand science. The most frequent transgression is treating correlation as causation. [/quote]
I think this claim is insulting to the industry. I don’t feel that the lifting community is any more or less intelligent than most others. I also feel like the lack of understanding of science and rational thinking is something that’s true everywhere, and the cause of far more serious issues than bro science.
[/quote]
I agree 100% with your last point. It’s an epidemic in the medical field too, for example.
What’s insulting to the industry? I never compared it to anything else. You did.
[/quote]
I was objecting to the phrase “the vast majority of people in the fitness industry are not intelligent”. It may be that we have different thresholds of “intelligence”, either way I think we agree on the whole.[/quote]
To fix the quote, it should say “the vast majority of people…are not intelligent.” [/quote]
I think the problem is that the vast majority of people are taught what to think rather than being taught how to think.[/quote]
Awesome point. Like why were we memorizing state capitals when we should have been learning the fundamentals of logic? Education is very lazy at the moment.
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
The vast majority of people in the fitness industry are not intelligent, or at least they don’t understand science. The most frequent transgression is treating correlation as causation. [/quote]
I think this claim is insulting to the industry. I don’t feel that the lifting community is any more or less intelligent than most others. I also feel like the lack of understanding of science and rational thinking is something that’s true everywhere, and the cause of far more serious issues than bro science.
[/quote]
I agree 100% with your last point. It’s an epidemic in the medical field too, for example.
What’s insulting to the industry? I never compared it to anything else. You did.
[/quote]
I was objecting to the phrase “the vast majority of people in the fitness industry are not intelligent”. It may be that we have different thresholds of “intelligence”, either way I think we agree on the whole.[/quote]
To fix the quote, it should say “the vast majority of people…are not intelligent.” [/quote]
I think the problem is that the vast majority of people are taught what to think rather than being taught how to think.[/quote]
Awesome point. Like why were we memorizing state capitals when we should have been learning the fundamentals of logic? Education is very lazy at the moment. [/quote]
That’s exactly what I meant, yes. Glad that came across.
[quote]craze9 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
How often do you see these genetic freaks? How would you know they are freaks unless, like the kid in your class, you watched their starting point and on-going developement?
I wouldn’t assume that someone progresses faster than me because of genetics just because his methods don’t jive with my own understanding of “science”. I would question my own methods and work ethic first.[/quote]
Point taken. You’re right, you generally don’t know what someone’s genetics are, and even if you do, it’s not useful info re: your own training progress.
I personally had a phase (lasting quite a few years) where I’d kind of look down on guys at the gym doing “light” “pump” “bodybuilding” work, or weird exercises, anything outside of what I considered the “right” way to lift, even if they were jacked! “They’re only big” because of genetics, or AAS. Pretty stupid in hindsight, but it can be tempting to make the assumption that others getting results are genetically gifted or anabolically enhanced when the alternative is that your own methods and training beliefs need to be re-assessed.[/quote]
Well, there’re always going to be real freaks out there. However, I believe we all fall under a bell curve, where a potential olympia contestant would be just as rare as a true hardgainer. So, unless people are training in a gym populated by national level competitors, I’m usually skeptical when there are claims of multiple future Ronnie Colemans always being seen in everyone’s gyms.
As for PED use, yes, some will progress faster initially to an extent, but again, I usually call bullshit on claims of constant accelerated progress above average levels of muscularity without the user being knowledgeable about proper methods of training and diet.
When someone has good genes, knowledge and excellect work ethic, with PED use, I would expect progress near the level of eatliftsleep in a short span of 3 years:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Well, there’re always going to be real freaks out there. However, I believe we all fall under a bell curve, where a potential olympia contestant would be just as rare as a true hardgainer. So, unless people are training in a gym populated by national level competitors, I’m usually skeptical when there are claims of multiple future Ronnie Colemans always being seen in everyone’s gyms.
As for PED use, yes, some will progress faster initially to an extent, but again, I usually call bullshit on claims of constant accelerated progress above average levels of muscularity without the user being knowledgeable about proper methods of training and diet.
When someone has good genes, knowledge and excellect work ethic, with PED use, I would expect progress near the level of eatliftsleep in a short span of 3 years:
Is the claim that gyms are full of future Ronnie Colemans the one that’s often being made, though? I think it’s more that a lot of kids have put some time in the gym and aren’t getting the results they feel they “should” have – based often on unrealistic expectations, created by pop culture – so they make excuses about other lifters’ genetics / PEDs.
And while I agree with you that there’s a bell curve, and that these people would be better off re-examining their own training/diet rather than making excuses, I do think that genetics play a pretty huge role in the rate of progress. Some guys just have better bone structures (e.g. wide shoulders), and will get stronger faster than other people. This, and other factors beyond just training and diet, are going to translate into faster muscle growth and better physiques for certain people, given the same amount of work/effort.
As for PEDs, they change the whole equation, don’t they? I mean, how many guys are capable of getting to Eatsleeplift’s level naturally, even in 10 years?
Also, I’m not sure I agree with you about people not progressing above average muscularity without good knowledge of training/diet even on PEDs. If you meant compared to other PED users, yes. But compared to natural lifters? I think you can get away with some pretty suboptimal training/diet and still make gains above what’s typical of a natural lifter if you’re blasting gear. Have you read the ShadowPro threads? There are some guys posting in there who clearly aren’t particularly knowledgeable about training, diet, or gear dosages, but are running large amounts and while they may not look super impressive, they’re all bigger than me lol.
[quote]craze9 wrote:
dt79 wrote:
Well, there’re always going to be real freaks out there. However, I believe we all fall under a bell curve, where a potential olympia contestant would be just as rare as a true hardgainer. So, unless people are training in a gym populated by national level competitors, I’m usually skeptical when there are claims of multiple future Ronnie Colemans always being seen in everyone’s gyms.
As for PED use, yes, some will progress faster initially to an extent, but again, I usually call bullshit on claims of constant accelerated progress above average levels of muscularity without the user being knowledgeable about proper methods of training and diet.
When someone has good genes, knowledge and excellect work ethic, with PED use, I would expect progress near the level of eatliftsleep in a short span of 3 years:
Yeah what I’m saying is the usual overexagerated claim is about others “blowing up” in spite of what they do, which, if you suscribe to the idea of the bell curve, these guys would all be potential olympia contestants lol.
Yes, definitely. My point is, if variations in genetics aren’t as extreme as what is frequently claimed, someone less genetically blessed would be able to catch up by attaining more knowledge AND being able to apply it correctly.
Yes, PEDs change the equation. IF, and only if the user has the knowledge and work ethic to make use of them.
I used to live in a country where 80% of regular gym rats were using. The gear available was cheap and from real pharmaceutical companies. Most of them looked average or slightly bigger than average. Some didn’t even look like they trained and then you find out these fuckers were using up to 3g of anabolics a week lol. The few that got big were seriously freaks.
Putting PED usage aside for a moment(as I’ve explained above), I would instead ask, is bodybuilding in theory as overly complicated as authors/gurus try to make it out to be to sell their articles and/or products? Are we really reading bro science supported with dubious studies that has little bearing on real world results?
See, lot of the guys you see in that thread are very similar to bodybuilders I knew in my previous country. They LIVE FOR THIS SHIT lol. Some of them, I can bet you, go as far as choosing professions to enable their lifestyles. These fellows may not be able to quote scientific studies at the drop of a hat, but their amount of knowledge is adequete to take them to that level. They use simple programs but go all out on intensity and adhere to their diets 24/7 like it’s a full time job. They also put a lot of emphasis on MMC.
If becoming overly concerned with “science” or what is “optimal” is holding back progress, I would rather look at their common traits and figure out what the truly important factors are rather than question their methods.
Interesting points. I generally agree, and to be honest I don’t have any direct personal experience with PEDs so appreciate hearing your perspective on that.
I don’t really have an answer to the question, though – I tend to go back and forth between thinking it’s all “not that complicated – train with common sense, eat, recover” and thinking the opposite, that there are actually a LOT of variables and that they all need to be managed carefully to make progress past a certain point. I just don’t know which it is, haha.
Actually I’d probably say that both are true, depending on training history and genetics. I think if you take a guy and he trains “pretty well” for a year or two, he will have reached his “baseline” physique. That is to say, the physique his genetics are “comfortable” with, given a basic training stimulus and adaptation. That physique will vary widely per the bell curve – some guys will be jacked, others more in “DYEL” territory. But it’s getting beyond that “baseline” point that is difficult, and requires more training specificity and intelligence and really dialing everything in, to make progress. Genetics will still play a role in how easy progress is past this point, but smart training and a strong work ethic can also overcome genetic weaknesses (to a certain extent). That’s my hypothesis, at least. Lol.
I guess I just think that most guys walking around a typical gym (not a hardcore lifting gym) are training with about the same level of intelligence/work ethic, but the physiques will still vary, and this variance is based primarily on genetics.
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Awesome point. Like why were we memorizing state capitals when we should have been learning the fundamentals of logic? Education is very lazy at the moment. [/quote]
I don’t think it’s necessarily about being lazy. People who think are people who question. What’s the incentive to teach people that?
[quote]craze9 wrote:
Interesting points. I generally agree, and to be honest I don’t have any direct personal experience with PEDs so appreciate hearing your perspective on that.
I don’t really have an answer to the question, though – I tend to go back and forth between thinking it’s all “not that complicated – train with common sense, eat, recover” and thinking the opposite, that there are actually a LOT of variables and that they all need to be managed carefully to make progress past a certain point. I just don’t know which it is, haha.
Actually I’d probably say that both are true, depending on training history and genetics. I think if you take a guy and he trains “pretty well” for a year or two, he will have reached his “baseline” physique. That is to say, the physique his genetics are “comfortable” with, given a basic training stimulus and adaptation. That physique will vary widely per the bell curve – some guys will be jacked, others more in “DYEL” territory. But it’s getting beyond that “baseline” point that is difficult, and requires more training specificity and intelligence and really dialing everything in, to make progress. Genetics will still play a role in how easy progress is past this point, but smart training and a strong work ethic can also overcome genetic weaknesses (to a certain extent). That’s my hypothesis, at least. Lol.
I guess I just think that most guys walking around a typical gym (not a hardcore lifting gym) are training with about the same level of intelligence/work ethic, but the physiques will still vary, and this variance is based primarily on genetics.[/quote]
Yes you are right. My point when it comes to genetics is that the variance is not so much about muscular potential(within a reasonable threshold, of course), but individual response and the ability to recover from training variables such as volume, frequency, rep range, etc.
Also, diet wise, we all don’t get the same effect from consuming the same foods, nor do we have the same metabolic rates. I can eat Big Macs and potatoe chips everyday and maintain a 6 pack without even training(I’m not making this up) but it takes copious amounts of calories for me to gain weight so eating is a serious chore. My macros certainly won’t be the same as someone more carb sensitive. Some gain muscle better at a higher bodyfat level, others at a lower bodyfat level.
The point I’m trying to make is that this is all as much an art as it is a science. Knowledge includes figuring out how our bodies respond to training and diet from experience and trial and error and the ability to filter what we read and discarding info that doesn’t apply to us.
Yes, genetics play a role, but I can bet you the guys that have gotten big, while sometimes not being able to articulate their methods well, know a lot more about their bodies than what many people give them credit for.
published broscience is guilty not because it comes from bros but because it is filler and a plea for attention. AND…because all science is guilty of same.
We all agree on the absolute basics, that is, lift enough to cause a change, left often enough so that change happens more frequently, and eat quality to fuel desired change, but after that it all goes to shit. Then the confirmation bias kicks in. Then then insults on discussions about it.
What’s the worst is that the fitness industry somehow labels certain folks experts, and their products get endorsed by the same circular group. Look at the experts that were here and have now fallen out of favor. Look at some of the forum members have come and gone.
Just lift smart and often brah.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Yes you are right. My point when it comes to genetics is that the variance is not so much about muscular potential(within a reasonable threshold, of course), but individual response and the ability to recover from training variables such as volume, frequency, rep range, etc.
Also, diet wise, we all don’t get the same effect from consuming the same foods, nor do we have the same metabolic rates. I can eat Big Macs and potatoe chips everyday and maintain a 6 pack without even training(I’m not making this up) but it takes copious amounts of calories for me to gain weight so eating is a serious chore. My macros certainly won’t be the same as someone more carb sensitive. Some gain muscle better at a higher bodyfat level, others at a lower bodyfat level.
The point I’m trying to make is that this is all as much an art as it is a science. Knowledge includes figuring out how our bodies respond to training and diet from experience and trial and error and the ability to filter what we read and discarding info that doesn’t apply to us.
Yes, genetics play a role, but I can bet you the guys that have gotten big, while sometimes not being able to articulate their methods well, know a lot more about their bodies than what many people give them credit for.[/quote]
I see what you mean. It definitely makes sense.
I’d say it can be pretty difficult to figure out how to optimally set the variables, though, especially for someone who isn’t genetically inclined to build muscle (or doesn’t respond well to “normal” training of medium volume, medium intensity, medium frequency). This is where “bro-science” comes into it, because any given lifter is really just working with a sample size of 1 (himself).
Diet is probably easier to figure out, because you’re always eating, and can see fat gain relatively easily in the mirror, plus you can use the scale. You know you can eat a lot and stay lean, and I know I can gain weight pretty easily, despite being skinny as a kid and assuming I had a fast metabolism.
But with training there are a LOT of variables, and progress is slow. I mean, if I’m lifting 2+ hours a day 5-6 days a week and I’m still only going to gain 1 lb of muscle spread across my entire body a MONTH, how the hell do I evaluate whether I respond better to low or high volume, or Chest Exercise A with a slow rep speed vs Chest Exercise B done explosively? It’s very difficult to take a truly “scientific” approach to that process. I guess this goes back to your point that it’s as much “art” as science. You can’t realistically control enough factors to be 100% scientific about it, so you have to apply instinct and feel and guesswork, and see what happens.