Youtube: Scott Abel

I can’t help myself. I’m posting more shit that WARRANTS further critique of Abel’s writing.

One of the things that bother me as an intellectual involved in this industry, is how one-dimensional everything about the industry has become. From magazines to contests, to the bodybuilders themselves, this industry is dominated with one-dimensional thought processes. One way to publish, one way to promote, one way to grow. The bodybuilders themselves and their industry’s gurus are the worst offenders of all. It galls me that the only “real” thinking and talking about progress in this sport surrounds drugs and supplements. Training has taken a back seat or is a non-consideration because “everyone trains hard” and hardcore bodybuilders “already know how to train”. This is probably the most abounding myth existing in the sport today, and it infuriates me.

I have spent the good part of fifteen years studying all aspects of anaerobic training, and the one thing that becomes perfectly clear through a “proper” interpretation of the research, is that bodybuilders professional and amateurs alike, haven’t got the slightest idea how to monitor or vary their training to get maximum results. Why? They have never been taught. Because it is out of mainstream sport, there has never been any real applied coaching in bodybuilding circles. The key word here is real. Bodybuilders are traditionalists. The training and the training myths that correspond with tradition are simply followed generation after generation. Because training is based on tradition alone, rather than applied traditional knowledge, bodybuilders are also trendists. They will follow any current “trend” borne out of the “opinion” of any current reigning champion, because they do not know any better. Right now, the current vogue is the Heavy Duty, or Dorian Yates style of training which everyone follows because “this guy’s Dorian Yates and he is Mr. Olympia; therefore, he must know”. I hate to burst anyone’s bubble but when you win a show the award is no applied knowledge award. Lightning does not strike upon the winning of a contest imbuing the winner with years of sound theoretical and practical knowledge. No. Most elite athletes in every sport are born to be elite athletes in their sport. The only difference between bodybuilding and other sports is that other sports are strongly steeped in knowledge based coaching and bodybuilding is not.

Take the Dorian Yates style for an example. How many people who take up this “style” of training ever critically address it before doing so? For instance, how do we know Dorian isn’t the exception rather than the rule? That is, maybe that style of training suits Dorian and only Dorain (maybe a select few other). How do we know that Dorain couldn’t look better and progress better using other training “styles”. If he did, would that automatically make that training style the new “vogue” training style and therefore the “new correct” one. Dorian himself has abandoned “that” style of training and has gone back to other “traditional” training styles. Why? Because longevity for Dorian is important. That former heavy-duty training style also resulted in one of the most hurt and injured athletes in the sport.

The question then begs, “if a training style is going to risk severe strains, and career threatening tears, how effective is it in the long term daily scheme of things?” These are obvious questions about training strategies that bodybuilders never address. They are satisfied with tradition and trends. However, they are missing one of the most critical aspects of this sport, which could affect their progress. Training. Yes, there is a right and wrong way to train. There is a right and wrong technique to employ while executing movements. In the coming issues I will destroy many of the training myths and “guru voodoo” knowledge that exists in this sport. I will prove that as the research shows there is a right way and a wrong way, to plan and carry out training programs.

I have always been amazed at the simplistic and often moronic logic employed by bodybuilders. They all seem to think that if they win a show, then they must have done everything right. When you win a show it just means that you were better than the other competitors that day! It doesn’t mean you were at your best, or you knew what you were doing. It just means you were the best specimen that day. Enough said.

He used the fucking Olympia as an example in which the winner can win on luck alone! Granted, in the subjectively-judged sport of bodybuilding, your success is dependent on the judge’s perception of you. It differs from powerlifting, in which you either lift a weight properly or you don’t!

However, he used Dorian Yates as an example in discussing the topic of bodybuilders being incapable of monitoring their progress. Dorian was THE MOST meticulous bodybuilder to ever live, monitoring every piece of food that went down the hatch, body weight and composition, and training session in both the off- and in-season. Dorian didn’t need a goddamn coach, and the reason why there are so few coaches in bodybuilding is because many people don’t need them, including some people on this board - Waylander, Stu, and Professor X, for example.

Experienced top-ranking amateurs and pros don’t know how to monitor themselves? Are you fucking kidding me?

Dorian didn’t train that differently from everyone else. He followed a four-way split. He used 2 to 4 exercise per muscle group. He ramped up to a top set.

He said that when you win a show, the aware is no “applied knowledge” award. This is comical - AS IF competitors don’t apply knowledge they picked up from their peers, magazines, and books. Again, Scott Abel speaking about others like they are a bunch of jerkoffs who win contests on luck and don’t know what they’re doing!

Dorian never abandoned the hardcore training style he was known for. He simply made some adjustments in exercise selection. He even admits that although he intended and planned to take some back-off weeks in training, he found it exceedingly difficult to take it easy. Some abandoning of a training style!

It’s uncalled for to blame his training style for his injuries. It’s called for to blame his effort - effort that was necessary to reach the top! The more you keep pushing the limit, the greater chance of injury. And it’s that inherent risk that is necessary to excel in all things physical!

Abel’s last paragraph further shows his disrespect to hardworking, bright competitors, diminishing their efforts and their knowledge. Maybe in a high school bodybuilding show, the winner got by on genetics and luck alone! But to speak of serious amateur and professionals as if they don’t know what they’re doing IS disrespectful! No wonder Dante scoffs at Abel’s writings too.

Scott Abel:

"The more I attempt to initiate people to the main tenets of Innervation Training, the more I am forced to backtrack. Most hardcore training enthusiasts are so inundated with pseudo-scientific one-dimensional dogma, that a presentation of real science boggles their minds. Moreover, because Innervation Training as a theoretical paradigm encapsulates other core tenets of training science (e.g. Biochemical, biomechanical, kinesthetics, physiological, musculoskeletal, and of course neurological) it is often difficult to explicate in detailed written form without confusing the reader. Innervation Training as a theoretical modality is the first attempt to unify the best of inductive and deductive reasoning and empirical evidence present in the world of strength. Most “traditionalists” trying to understand Innervation Training often make the mistake of trying to reduce the whole theory to a program, or an idea. The average mentality of strength training enthusiasts is reductionism in nature. That is, they attempt to reduce all concepts, ideas, variables, and causastions to a single form. As with most real theories in the material world, such reasoning is not plausible. The whole theoretically is greater than the sum of its parts. The Gestalt nature of Innervation Training theory is that it is very complex; understanding any aspects of its application necessitates a realistic understanding of its core theoretical tenets.

Before delving further into applied Innervation Training, I will again explain the main elements of Innervation Training Theory. Specifically in this article I wish to address the neurological adaptations to training. In order to discuss training in any detail it is imperative to define two variables. Strength and intensity. These are two words used everyday in the world of sport yet few people, even so-called experts spend any time analyzing their meaning. Strength for all intents and purposes is defined as force output capacity-: whether it is applied or not. Physiologically, there are over twenty different kinds of strength (applied) but all can be “reduced” to the idea of force output capacity for purposes of discussion. Strength contrary to “traditional” and hence “popular” belief is not that important a concept in terms of adaptations to training or training progress. More important to training progress and specifically to Innervation Training is the concept of intensity. Ask any “expert” to define intensity and you will certainly get a rambling of somesort, probably, co-relating strength with intensity. That is known as circular logic. Like the concept of strength, the concept of intensity must be defined in order to yield quantifiable conclusions and realistic discussion.

Ask any athlete about their training intensity and without hesitation they will tell you “I train hard. I train intense.” In fact I’ve never had a single athlete tell me “you know what, I really don’t’ train that hard.” But on what are they basing this supposition “I train hard.” This is merely a subjective interpretation of external feedback, which bears little meaning in actuality. Intensity isn’t a concept you report. It has no emotional connotations. Intensity as a process can be defined as an adaptive one, a learned response to stimuli, which is neurological in nature. Conceptually then intensity is based on the capacity of the nervous system to adapt specifically to specific forms of stress. For anaerobically trained athletes this idea is intimately connected to the concept of strength. Strength being defined as force output capacity and not 1RM. 1RM and physical definitions of strength are kindergarten conceptions at best.

Now, I can across the board guarantee that all of you are not training at maximum intensity. The funny thing about this is that most people who hear or read this comment by me are often offended. Why? This is not a character flaw. It is a physiological fact. If intensity is a learned process, much like reading and writing, how could you be training at maximum intensity- if not one has taught you? A subjective interpretation of your own workout ethic does not equal the definition of intensity; it only equals your opinion of your work ethic.

Workout intensity is an adaptive process learned by the nervous system. Before I can explain key elements of Innervation Training like “Functional Differentiation” and “segmented utilization” of muscles in action, I will use the remainder of this article to discuss intensity and the neurological adaptations to training which produce greater intensity and therefore, stronger better athletes."

Damn Brick you have a vendetta against this mofker, lol.

Scott Abel wrote:

“Look for experts who have university educations and scholarships and are working at what they love. If there are no degrees beside their name, be skeptical. Then look for the level of expertise and experience of this expert. Why is it in bodybuilding we will rely on so-called experts with no academic credentials and their experience level is a magic act.”

Meanwhile, Scott doesn’t have one degree in exercise physiology, public health, medicine, physical education, health education, nutrition, or any of the life and physical sciences. His degrees are in social work. So according to his logic, we shouldn’t take him serious when he writes on drugs, training, and nutrition.

I’m a registered dietitian with an education in nutrition. I still don’t think one has to have a degree in order to be a competent bodybuilder.

Here’s a link to an article on diuretics written by him: www.anabolicextreme.com/archives/anex_archives_issue7_diuretics.htm

According to his logic, I shouldn’t take this article seriously because he isn’t a chemist, pharmacist, or medical doctor.

Lol I love you Brick. Ruthless.

This Innervation Training reminds me of that Bastard fella that used to post here with his Super High Intensity Training or “S.H.I.T.” and my very own- Forced Unit Coupling Kinematics, or as my disciples like to call it “F.U.C.K.” .

Both are very all encompassing and complex systems that the layman should not attempt to understand.

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
The issue is not so much Scott Abel’s intelligence or insight and whether knows what he’s talking about, but rather his ability to effectively communicate something of interest and thats directly implementable to his readers, and perhaps far more telling, Mr Abel’s INTENT on disseminating useful and implementable information to those who give him the time of day.

[/quote]

I agree that Scott often sounds dogmatic and likes to use complex explanations to demonstrate simple concepts in order to have some sort of aura of mystique. All I’m saying is that most of the “experts” out there like doing exactly the same thing. The problem with Scott’s approach is that it is often very difficult to actually get a grasp of what he is preaching (AKA he can be inconsistent and almost not understandable). Every concept intentionally becomes a secret held by him that the reader has to decode.

Still, like when reading any expert, the reader has to develop a bullshit radar (or more formally, use reasoning) to determine which ideas to reject and which to accept from said expert. The people who usually get the most information are those who actively try and take the best knowledge from as many people as possible while trying to filter out concepts that are either irrelevant or plain wrong. It’s easy to find disagreements with people’s work, but a lot of times either their general message has some merit or at least, some knowledge can be gained (even if the author’s overall approach is wrong).

EDIT: All I know is that I wouldn’t want the guys from the video above to be designing my workouts.[/quote]

I disagree. Not every expert bores us with intellectual drivel, useless information, and unreadable articles.

I’m unsure if he’s dogmatic; he just implies that the rest of the training world is a bunch of jerk-offs that aren’t up to speed with him and his clients.

I’d rather not have to use a bullshit radar to get USABLE information! I’d much rather read understandable people that talk to readers with respect. I’ve never had a problem with the writings of:

John Berardi
Lonnie Lowery
Dave Tate
Jim Wendler
Dorian Yates
Christian Thibaudeau
Tom Venuto
Dan Duchaine
Jerry Brainum
Chris Aceto
Justin Harris
Eric Cressey

NONE of these guys talk of all things related to nutrition and training as if they rival the difficulty of a Mars mission or human cloning. And these are pretty bright, brainy men I speak of - especially Lonnie Lowery and Eric Cressey.
[/quote]

One of the enduring lessons of a college education for me was that it is far harder to write simply, clearly and to-the-point than it is to wax verbose (oops, did I just wax verbose?).

Perhaps. I just didn’t know it was so hard to write or say something like:

“If you wanna get jacked, do 2 to 4 exercises per muscle group for 6 to 15 reps. Use compound and isolation exercises. Do a few warm-ups before your work sets. Lift with good form.”

Maybe it is for some. And maybe now trainers have to come across as geniuses to gain some clients. And maybe now we have to discuss the minutia of training, including how to warm up and ramp up.

I give kudos to Jason Ferrugia, as he had the ability to explain how to ramp up in two sentences in his most recent interview for T-mag. Such a simple concept has warranted multi-page threads as of late.

The mess that has been created with the advent of the internet has caused me to appoint myself as the one-man goon squad of T-mag. That’s why I use ruthlessness, as pointed out above.

I’ll be back later. I’m going to eat sushi with my friend. And I’m not bringing a fucking food scale with me, nor do I give a flying fuck about the mercury in tuna and salmon or if the salmon I’ll be eating is wild or farm-raised!

Til next time,

Bricknyce
Executive Commandant
T-Nation Terror Squad

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

I’d rather not have to use a bullshit radar to get USABLE information! I’d much rather read understandable people that talk to readers with respect. I’ve never had a problem with the writings of:

John Berardi
Lonnie Lowery
Dave Tate
Jim Wendler
Dorian Yates
Christian Thibaudeau
Tom Venuto
Dan Duchaine
Jerry Brainum
Chris Aceto
Justin Harris
Eric Cressey

[/quote]
Still, even though I’m a fan of most these guys (Jerry Brainum is the only one I don’t know of), you still should not listen to them blindly. A lot of times their methods contradict each other even though most of them produce results. The key is to find out the underlying truth of what is producing the results and not follow most of these guys blindly.

Also, some of them are more knowledgeable in certain domains and when they try to delve into others, they do not know what they are talking about. [/quote]

Jerry Brainum writes for Ironman magazine.

The following isn’t bad per se; the guy is positive and spiritual. But this could have been shortened to about two sentences.

“To this end, Iâ??ve learned I am not my body and my body is not me either. It is merely the housing of my consciousness. I am not this human being having a spiritual experience. I am instead this spiritual being having a human experience. My body is just this complicated miraculous tool. And I, the craftsman can work this tool from the outside in, or the inside out. I can work this tool from the heart or from the brain or from both. My spirit can tool this work to some form of artistic creation and expression that is uniquely me.”

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
The following isn’t bad per se; the guy is positive and spiritual. But this could have been shortened to about two sentences.

“To this end, Iâ??ve learned I am not my body and my body is not me either. It is merely the housing of my consciousness. I am not this human being having a spiritual experience. I am instead this spiritual being having a human experience. My body is just this complicated miraculous tool. And I, the craftsman can work this tool from the outside in, or the inside out. I can work this tool from the heart or from the brain or from both. My spirit can tool this work to some form of artistic creation and expression that is uniquely me.”[/quote]

You’d be surprised how many books are out there about philosophy/religion/spirituality that go on like this the whole way through.

It’s pretty bad when people like you guys have no time but to rip on Scott Abel for trying to sound like he gives a shit about what he’s doing, especially when you have the majority of society looking at people like him, and the bodybuilding community, with a stigma that they’re a bunch of freaks.

He has to know what the hell he is talking about and it may sound like nerdy drivel, but a lot of the material he learned throughout his life could have been expressed differently, not to mention he probably HAD to sound like that when going through school and writing papers. I don’t know if you guys know a thing or two about writing dissertations, but sometimes you have to put a lot of “nerdy drivel” to help get a point across.

Scott has contributed a vast amount of information to people like us to help us GROW. Instead of being haters, just acknowledge that Scott has provided a lot of free advice on mindset and training techniques.

[quote]Njgolds wrote:
It’s pretty bad when people like you guys have no time but to rip on Scott Abel for trying to sound like he gives a shit about what he’s doing, especially when you have the majority of society looking at people like him, and the bodybuilding community, with a stigma that they’re a bunch of freaks.

He has to know what the hell he is talking about and it may sound like nerdy drivel, but a lot of the material he learned throughout his life could have been expressed differently, not to mention he probably HAD to sound like that when going through school and writing papers. I don’t know if you guys know a thing or two about writing dissertations, but sometimes you have to put a lot of “nerdy drivel” to help get a point across.

Scott has contributed a vast amount of information to people like us to help us GROW. Instead of being haters, just acknowledge that Scott has provided a lot of free advice on mindset and training techniques. [/quote]

I’ve written my share–A LOT–of science writing in school. Yeah, you have to use peer-reviewed literature for references. And if you’re summarizing an experiment, explanation, especially when using statistical terms, can be cumbersome. But I’ve always made it a point to write like I talk - as much as possible.

Of course I know that this guy knows something, and perhaps a lot! Of course I give credit to him for delivering a quality service and getting people into shape. He’s done a good job. It’s just that I intensely dislike his tone - all the rest of us are jerk-offs who don’t know what we’re doing!

Do you know how ridiculous it sounds when someone says, “Perhaps Dorian Yates could have progressed and looked better with a different training system.” Do you know how dumb that sounds when the person being spoken of won 16 shows in a row, with all of them being top pro shows–all Olympia and Grand Prix contests–and held his own in his first show at age 23, against established monsters like Matt Mendenhall?

And then to go on and say this man, who never had a coach, and others, don’t know how to train or monitor their own training and nutrition? And to say that Dorian trained his back the wrong way? Are you fucking kidding me?

There are other all-out nerds–Lonnie Lowery, John Berardi–who write prolifically and don’t use a condescending tone or bore us to tears with scientific drivel and fail to let us know what they’re talking or intend to prove within the first two paragraphs of an article or BOOK.

Some of those videos are soooo confusing and theyre fucking exercise demonstrations, impressive vocabulary though lol, some of his exercises that i hadn;t seen before i did like actually

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
This quote from Abel takes the fucking cake!

“How do we know that Dorian couldn’t look better and progress better using other training ‘styles’.”

Here we have a fucking personal trainer questioning the training method of one of the biggest, most successful bodybuilders that has ever lived! Could he have looked better? Are you fucking kidding me? Oh, maybe Dorian would have been even bigger and more shredded if he had become an Abel Body jock-grabbing, pseudo-scientist!

I apologize for my melodramatics, but this just goes over the limit of decency and RESPECT - and it’s respect that should be paid to one of the greatest bodybuilding champions of all time! [/quote]

The Dorian comment is pretty self-serving. I agree, Dorian is a bad example.

[quote]drewh wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau- How is he on your list? He makes shit super complicated.[/quote]

No, what we have is a bunch of idiots who need 50 page threads to understand how to warm up to a working weight.

His latest articles have been pretty basic things that gym rats have been doing for years broken down into absolutely painstaking detail so that the average poster on this site can wrap his mind around it. If it seems over complicated to you, then congrats, you are one of the rare people on this site who doesn’t need a 1,000 page instruction manual in the gym telling them how to lift weights. Being that this type of person comprises a very large proportion of Biotest’s market segment, it’s smart for them to publish articles in this fashion.

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
The following isn’t bad per se; the guy is positive and spiritual. But this could have been shortened to about two sentences.

“To this end, IÃ?¢??ve learned I am not my body and my body is not me either. It is merely the housing of my consciousness. I am not this human being having a spiritual experience. I am instead this spiritual being having a human experience. My body is just this complicated miraculous tool. And I, the craftsman can work this tool from the outside in, or the inside out. I can work this tool from the heart or from the brain or from both. My spirit can tool this work to some form of artistic creation and expression that is uniquely me.”[/quote]

You’d be surprised how many books are out there about philosophy/religion/spirituality that go on like this the whole way through.
[/quote]

I’m not surprised; I used to read a lot of self-help rubbish in my more confused years growing up.

I’ve come down to a system where I can shorten most diet, self-help, and get-rich books to 1 to 30 pages - perhaps more in some cases, depending on complexity of the subject.

Here’s my get-rich bible that goes over actions that foo-foo-dust self-help hucksters chronically disregard - because they’re not what people want to hear - the brutal truth.

Step 1) Get a job that pays twice to thrice the average American salary.
Step 2) Start your own business.
Step 3) Live below your income.

Presto! I wrote my own goddamn get-rich book in 3 sentences! The only problem is that no one wants to hear that shit because most people aren’t in the position to do those ALL of those three things!

Here’s my self-help bible.

  1. Be a decent human being.
  2. Treat others with kindness and respect.
  3. Choose your friends
  4. Have good manners.
  5. Obey the law.
  6. Don’t procrastinate with work, bills, and other responsibilities.
  7. Keep a neat room, house or apartment, car, and desk. Eliminate clutter.
  8. Stay organized.
  9. Manage your time wisely.

There! I wrote a fucking self-help bible in 9 lines!

Now, for what all you hardcore muscleheads have been waiting for - a get-huge bible!

  1. Choose a blend of compound and isolation exercises.
  2. Split the body over 3 to 6 workouts, depending on your split and preferred frequency.
  3. Perform 2 to 4 exercises per muscle group - 2 compound and 1 to 2 isolation for large muscle groups, and 1 to 2 compound and 1 to 2 isolation for small muscle groups.
  4. Follow a bodybuilder diet - 5 to 6 meals per day; a carb-protein drink during and/or after workouts; protein at every meal; healthy fat at every meal; occasional “free”/“cheat” meals; plenty of veggies and fruits; and the amount of starchy carbs you can handle.
  5. Work hard.
  6. Get adequate sleep.
  7. Manage your lifestyle and responsibilities so you can recover and have time to work out.

There - I fucking did it again! I’m going into the publishing business! I’ve got a knack for taking what usually spans 100 to 300 page books and 1,000 to 3,000 word articles and condensing it down to 5 to 10 lines or steps!

Watch out Brian Tracy, Oprah, Scott Abel, CT, Steven Covey, and Suze Orman. There’s a new big dog in town - the goon man, the one-man terror squad!

Til next time,

Brickhead
“Kicking down T-tards’ doors for over 6 years!”