[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Erm, what? I think this proves my point that a lot of people don’t understand how science works. The rest of your post makes sense, but these two sentences here are absolute idiocy.
Another issue here is that there isn’t really a whole lot of research and data available that looks at the type of subjects that would be easily applicable to the gym going /fitness oritented crowd. Most studies that we see people trying to extrapolate info from is done on relatively untrained people, using protocols that are nowhere near what a hardcore gym rat would employ, or a diet that is nowhere close to what someone truly serious about a physique recomp would be following.
Of course now that we’re seeing more studies with a closer relevance being funded, you get people crying about conflicting interests if they’re not happy about the outcome.
S
[quote]craze9 wrote:
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. [/quote]
I suppose you would have to define “pretty well”; however I haven’t seen many lifters progress much without a consistent, perpetual program that includes diet as well as training. I would also argue that four to five continuous years (without any idle periods) is required to reach what you are considering baseline.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
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]
Amen…
Process control at the highest level. To borrow from MFG Continuous Improvement Theory; it requires intimate knowledge of yourself.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]craze9 wrote:
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. [/quote]
I suppose you would have to define “pretty well”; however I haven’t seen many lifters progress much without a consistent, perpetual program that includes diet as well as training. I would also argue that four to five continuous years (without any idle periods) is required to reach what you are considering baseline.
[/quote]
4 to 5 years with good nutrition, training, and zero idle periods is far beyond what I meant by “baseline.” Most guys in the gym will probably never accomplish the latter.
By baseline I meant more “newbie gains.” In my first 4 months lifting I put on 25 lbs that pretty much all looked like muscle. I wasn’t “jacked” (still am not, lol) but there are some guys who will get very muscular just from the first 6 months or a year or two of serious training. While others will not, even if they do still make progress.
But as a measure of what is actually required to make significant progress beyond newbie gains, the 4-5 years of solid training sounds right.
Really inspiring stuff here. Keep up guys
I’m always happy to find someone with more experience on the internets, discussing exactly what I feel after 3 years of serious training
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Most studies that we see people trying to extrapolate info from is done on relatively untrained people, using protocols that are nowhere near what a hardcore gym rat would employ, or a diet that is nowhere close to what someone truly serious about a physique recomp would be following.
[/quote]
Bingo.
A study that tests untrained 65-year-olds on maximal-effort leg extensions, assigns them to Protocol 1 or Protocol 2, and then retests them 12 weeks later is hardly a definitive statement about whether Protocol 1 or Protocol 2 is “better” overall. And yet it is often treated as such.
Can I give you some of my Internet points?
I think it’s just because there are so many different variations of getting in good shape and if you have the dedication and diet it will probably get you there in the end whether it is the most efficient way or not.