Science based body building

[PeasantPlayer]

 

[PeasantPlayer]

First video

 

[speed dawg]

Do we really need more "science" in body-building? Seems to me like it's been science-ed to death. Most of it is bro-science.

 

[PeasantPlayer]

Do we really need more "science" in body-building? Seems to me like it's been science-ed to death. Most of it is bro-science.

It's not a bad video

 

[PeasantPlayer]

He links his studies

 

[PeasantPlayer]

Unless you’re competing professionally and/or you plateau after years of lifting and need to squeeze out every advantage for that extra pound of muscle, all of this deep science isnt really necessary, imo.

You’d be much better off otherwise just sticking to the fundamentals and knowing how to listen to your own body.

The video is straight to the point easy to understand and implement. Its good for beginners looking to get started. The added links from pubmed are a bonus imo

 

[PeasantPlayer]

You guys are overthinking it, this is for beginners. Mods sticky the thread

 

[speed dawg]

Just as an example: The video mentions you should do a chest supported inverted row (rather than a barbell bent over row) in order to avoid incorporating lower back muscles (not to mention legs as well) that have already been sufficiently worked out. Sounds great, but why isn't this same logic being applied to...say.... the deadlift or the bench press or any other compound exorcize? Why this compound movement, but not that one? Why do any compound exorcise at all if that is the logic behind it? If you can't answer that, then why the hell are you doing it?

Now I have done chest supported rows, but only when my body told me to. At one point I had a DOMS issue going on in my legs when it was time for me to work the back. I knew I wouldn't be able to maximize intensity with the bent over rows with that going on, so I did the chest supported row to get a maximum upper back intensity without recruiting those other muscles. But as soon as my body recovered, I went back to the bent over rows. My body quickly adapted and I have not had issues since then that would suggest that I should continue with chest-supported variations.

I could even argue that someone new to lifting needs to recruit muscles in these compound exorcises in order to build a more solid core. Why tell them to isolate more? Where is the scientific justification there?

Outside of any very basic workout routine that has been proven to work for noobs, the only thing they need to know is how to lift, eat and sleep properly. Proper form, the right intake of calories, how much rest is needed and how much rest is too much. You're body is going to give you all of the answers you need with a level of precision and accuracy that science simply can't compete with.

Yep everybody is going to benefit from fundamental training, and any workout should be rooted in that aspect of it. Bulking, cutting, doesn't matter. Only reason isolation movements should be incorporated is to either work around an injury or fine tune/secondarily work a muscle group.

Nutrition gets beaten to death. Do we really need to discuss food that much? It's not that difficult. Sh*t, Arnold had a lot of it right in the 1970s, and most of the bro science that came out after that got shown to be nonsense so everything is going back to the old ways. I think now the biggest nutritional advice would be the type that helps you prevent a damned heart attack.

 

[PeasantPlayer]

That's the problem, IMO. It's just another split routine of the millions being pushed out there.... being presented with a lot of science talk.

Don't get me wrong. I love science. I'm a geek for it. The problem with it is that there are so many conflicting scientific studies out there that the only science that is solid enough to work on the masses is going to be largely fundamental in nature:

Lift, eat, sleep.
Lift, eat, sleep.
Lift, eat, sleep.

Science attempts to pin point exactly how to lift, or exactly what/how much you should eat, or how long exactly to rest/sleep, etc. But no matter what formula science comes up with, everyone's body is going to react differently to it. Different genetics, different metabolic rates, different recovery rates, different strengths and limitations, etc..... there are too many other variables always involved. This is why your body can tell you exactly what you need to know when science can't.

Science told me that I if I wanted to eat at a 500 calorie surplus working out 5x a week that I should consume roughly 3000 calories per day in order to bulk. But my body told me otherwise. I had to go to just under 4000 calories to start slowly putting on mass. If someone else does the same thing, they will likely turn into a tubby bastard real quick.

Speaking of conflicting studies, there is conflict in this video, IMO.

Just as an example: The video mentions you should do a chest supported inverted row (rather than a barbell bent over row) in order to avoid incorporating lower back muscles (not to mention legs as well) that have already been sufficiently worked out. Sounds great, but why isn't this same logic being applied to...say.... the deadlift or the bench press or any other compound exorcize? Why this compound movement, but not that one? Why do any compound exorcise at all if that is the logic behind it? If you can't answer that, then why the hell are you doing it?

Now I have done chest supported rows, but only when my body told me to. At one point I had a DOMS issue going on in my legs when it was time for me to work the back. I knew I wouldn't be able to maximize intensity with the bent over rows with that going on, so I did the chest supported row to get a maximum upper back intensity without recruiting those other muscles. But as soon as my body recovered, I went back to the bent over rows. My body quickly adapted and I have not had issues since then that would suggest that I should continue with chest-supported variations.

I could even argue that someone new to lifting needs to recruit muscles in these compound exorcises in order to build a more solid core. Why tell them to isolate more? Where is the scientific justification there?

Outside of any very basic workout routine that has been proven to work for noobs, the only thing they need to know is how to lift, eat and sleep properly. Proper form, the right intake of calories, how much rest is needed and how much rest is too much. You're body is going to give you all of the answers you need with a level of precision and accuracy that science simply can't compete with.

All science conflicts, just like your idea of working out is conflicting with the video or someone's idea of working out conflicts with another.

 

[speed dawg]

All science conflicts, just like your idea of working out is conflicting with the video or someone's idea of working out conflicts with another.

That's a cop out though man, there are certainly some universal truths. Science is based on universal truth.

 

[PeasantPlayer]

That's a cop out though man, there are certainly some universal truths. Science is based on universal truth.

It's not a cop out it's the truth, science is based on evidence and observation and repeated studies. There are but very few truths and most of them have nothing to do with science. Science is a tool of observation and hypothesis testing.

 

[PeasantPlayer]

A beginner can grab some of the workouts on the video and utilize them how accordingly with completely ignoring the science. Hence my point of the overreacting, it's just a template and can help people get started when they are left in confusion from different people on here or T Nation etc. You don't have to read the studies to workout

 

[EyeBRollin]

That's a cop out though man, there are certainly some universal truths. Science is based on universal truth.

Nah, science is based on the scientific method. It takes extensive testing for each hypothesis. Universal truth only exists when the science becomes law.

 

[PeasantPlayer]

Just did these workouts it was cool, now time to eat replenishes and in a few hours jump rope