High Reps or Low Reps for Muscle Growth?

[Anoop Balachandran]

reps ranges, rest periods, and all the studies in the world don't amount to shit compared to a motivated trainee who's willing to observe, experiment and try for himself. my evidence on that is purely anecdotal of course.

You can be motivated, willing to observe, experiment and also be science-based. You don't have to always take the extreme stance.

And do you do the same for supplements too?

[Dave Van Skike]

Originally Posted by Anoop Balachandran

You can be motivated, willing to observe, experiment and also be science-based. You don't have to always take the extreme stance.

And do you do the same for supplements too?

my stance is not extreme. it's reality. a narrow study doesn't give me anywhere near as much information as talking to soemone I trust who's already been there.

my advice goes double for supplements. If I haven't talked to someone who's tried it, I won't go near it with a ten foot pole regardless of what the "study" shows.

The only exception I think I can recall is creatine, which I tried when I was a bike racer. Nobody I knew had used it for cycling. I gave it a try and it worked fantastic...for a while. In retrospect probably had something to do with my crappy diet but whatever, I did expirement N=1 and got well prepped for a series of races and did quite well with it.

[Donald Lee]

Originally Posted by Dave Van Skike

my stance is not extreme. it's reality. a narrow study doesn't give me anywhere near as much information as talking to soemone I trust who's already been there.

my advice goes double for supplements. If I haven't talked to someone who's tried it, I won't go near it with a ten foot pole regardless of what the "study" shows.

The only exception I think I can recall is creatine, which I tried when I was a bike racer. Nobody I knew had used it for cycling. I gave it a try and it worked fantastic...for a while. In retrospect probably had something to do with my crappy diet but whatever, I did expirement N=1 and got well prepped for a series of races and did quite well with it.

I think what Anoop is trying to say is that you can have the best of both worlds. Basing something on one study is not what good researchers do. Anoop just wrote that article about one study, but he wasn't basing his conclusions just on that study alone.

There are quite a few researchers who are also great coaches, although there could always be more. There are also many great coaches who aren't researchers but have pursued science/exercise science/nutrition backgrounds.

You can always have both, although it takes a lot of time, money, and effort.

[Anoop Balachandran]

my stance is not extreme. it's reality. a narrow study doesn't give me anywhere near as much information as talking to soemone I trust who's already been there.

You will find 100's of people who are "already there" and who all have different opinions. Who are you going to trust and on what basis?

If I haven't talked to someone who's tried it, I won't go near it with a ten foot pole regardless of what the "study" shows.

Do you really think people who buy and eat all those crazy supplements think it is not working? They all think it is working!

this is something I wrote specifically about the problems with anecdotes: http://www.exercisebiology.com/index...re_unreliable/

And in our field, there is not enough funding and qualities studies to sometimes bring out practical applications. But that doesn't automatically mean anecdotes are better. We use the best available evidence and judgment based on our experiences.

And the site header is "Advancing the Science of athletic performance" if you missed it.

[Dave Van Skike]

Originally Posted by Donald Lee

I think what Anoop is trying to say is that you can have the best of both worlds. Basing something on one study is not what good researchers do. Anoop just wrote that article about one study, but he wasn't basing his conclusions just on that study alone.

There are quite a few researchers who are also great coaches, although there could always be more. There are also many great coaches who aren't researchers but have pursued science/exercise science/nutrition backgrounds.

You can always have both, although it takes a lot of time, money, and effort.

what i'm saying is that it quite simply does not matter. in this arena it matters less that nothing. Health/fitness/conditioning sciences are to the point where nearly every piece of research either confirms conventional wisdom in some unremarkable way (case in point) or seeks to be inflammatory by presenting findings without context or nuance.

i must be getting old. all these "studies" sounds like crap. you kids need to turn down that awful emo music and get a job.

[Dave Van Skike]

Originally Posted by Anoop Balachandran

You will find 100's of people who are "already there" and who all have different opinions. Who are you going to trust and on what basis?

i use a function called judgement. it is the unique human ability to discern shit from shinola. it comes from experience. it's really quite a useful thing.

the plural of anecdote is data.

[Garrett Smith]

Placebos Are Getting More Effective. Drugmakers Are Desperate to Know Why.

The roots of the placebo problem can be traced to a lie told by an Army nurse during World War II as Allied forces stormed the beaches of southern Italy. The nurse was assisting an anesthetist named Henry Beecher, who was tending to US troops under heavy German bombardment. When the morphine supply ran low, the nurse assured a wounded soldier that he was getting a shot of potent painkiller, though her syringe contained only salt water. Amazingly, the bogus injection relieved the soldier's agony and prevented the onset of shock.

Feel free to substitute in appropriate weight training / swole words.

Whatever people want to believe is what will work the best.

[Steven Low]

Originally Posted by Anoop Balachandran

Works for what? And why do you think it works? And why are you so sure?

And this is the problem with anecdotes. Everyone seems to have their own set of observations which they believe is true no matter what.

And I agree it's not rocket science.

All I am saying is that we can do much much better with an evidence based approach. There are so many pitfalls with anecdotal evidences and that's the major reason why the evidence based approach evolved. I hope you would agree here considering you are pursuing your ph.D

Nice site of yours!

What works is what works.

Honestly, I like the evidenced base approach (as you know from my site).

But the evidence based approach is limited in two areas:

1. Not all people respond the same to similar protocol. What is optimal for someone may not be optimal for someone else. Obviously, genetics play a big factor here.

Hence, why experience and anecdotal evidence etc. is a huge factor. You want someone who has a huge variety of population based experience who can say to you... "hey this protocol works for most people but it's not working for you. Let's try this instead."

2. For the people that aren't willing to put in the time, money, and effort, the expereriences of multiple people tend to work extremely well. Especially in line with what Dave has stated earlier in this thread.

-------------------

This is a good community. We have a lot of people here who do their own research. But we also have a lot of people who experiment to see if things work.

You can't have one without the other. Experience is as benficial or even more beneficial sometimes than research especially if research is very poorly done.

If a patient has an injury and I tell to them do something out of my experience because it WORKS even though I have no way to give any evidence should they ignore what I say? Similarly, for coaches with elite athletes who get results?

What works is what works. Regardless of it is anecdotal evidence or scientific evidence backing it up. Even if it is both of those or even NOTHING backing it up.

Do we care why whole milk is better post workout than skim milk? Maybe. Do we know it works? Yes. Could I try to come up with an answer for that based on scientific reasoning? Yeah, I could.. and I tried to. But you can't dispute the fact that it works.

[Anoop Balachandran]

Whatever people want to believe is what will work the best.

There is a good reason why research insist on double blinded designs and random sampling to avoid the placebo effects and similar psychological biases.

Your argument only supports the use of a systematic approach like research.

[Dave Van Skike]

Originally Posted by Anoop Balachandran

There is a good reason why research insist on double blinded designs and random sampling to avoid the placebo effects and similar psychological biases.

Your argument only supports the use of a systematic approach like research.

There's also good reason why scientists contribute so little to the art and practice of athlete development.

Thank you Steven. Well said.

I was trying to bend the spoon. Forgot for a moment there is no spoon. I'm out.