Home   |   Contact   |   Help

Get Our Newsletter
Sign up for our free newsletter to get training tips and stay up to date on Catalyst Athletics, and get a FREE issue of the Performance Menu journal.

Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Training > Fitness, Strength & CrossFit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-25-2010, 07:18 PM   #21
Donald Lee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646
Default

[quote=Dave Van Skike;76378]There's also good reason why scientists contribute so little to the art and practice of athlete development. QUOTE]

Hmmm...

Louie Simmons was influenced by scientists.

Mel Siff was a scientist.

Many people have taken ideas from Verkhoshansky who's a scientist. For example, shock training (depth jumps) came from Verkhoshansky.

Block periodization, which many if not most athletes of endurance and mixed modal sports utilize, came from scientists.

Rehab work was developed through science.

Charlie Francis relied heavily on science.

Mike Tuscherer of Reactive Training Systems loves science, and he's trying to get Powerlifters to become more knowledable about science.

Joel Jaimeson has read a ton of science to obtain his methods for training MMA fighters.

Much of the way we train nowadays came from scientists, whether we are aware of that or not. It works the other way around as well. Scientists test theories that many coaches/trainees have.

Many of us are just lucky that we have so many folks who have broken down the science in a practical way for the masses.
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2010, 07:22 PM   #22
Dave Van Skike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: PNW
Posts: 1,738
Default

[quote=Donald Lee;76380]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Van Skike View Post
There's also good reason why scientists contribute so little to the art and practice of athlete development. QUOTE]

Hmmm...

Louie Simmons was influenced by scientists.

Mel Siff was a scientist.

Many people have taken ideas from Verkhoshansky who's a scientist. For example, shock training (depth jumps) came from Verkhoshansky.

Block periodization, which many if not most athletes of endurance and mixed modal sports utilize, came from scientists.

Rehab work was developed through science.

Charlie Francis relied heavily on science.

Mike Tuscherer of Reactive Training Systems loves science, and he's trying to get Powerlifters to become more knowledable about science.

Joel Jaimeson has read a ton of science to obtain his methods for training MMA fighters.

Much of the way we train nowadays came from scientists, whether we are aware of that or not. It works the other way around as well. Scientists test theories that many coaches/trainees have.

Many of us are just lucky that we have so many folks who have broken down the science in a practical way for the masses.
nice try don.
__________________
Practical Strength
Dave Van Skike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2010, 07:43 PM   #23
Anoop Balachandran
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19
Default

I know you know these since you are in ur Ph.d. I am writing for other people who are reading.

Quote:
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.
That applies to every health field. Hence research is highly specific (like population, gender, and so on) and uses concepts like internal and external validity. In recent studies, subjects a within subjects design is employed to minimize effects of genetic variations (some of the protein studies).


Quote:
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."

Evidence based approach do not ignore judgment/experience.
This is one of the misconceptions about evidence- based approach.

For example, if a patients comes with CNS lymphoma brain tumor and has diabetes, has heart problems and is older than 70. The clinically proven treatment might be a specific drug. But the dose based on the study may not be the optimum considering the diabetes and cardiac problems. So the clinicians experience and judgment will come here to determine the drug dosage and frequency and additional drugs that the person needs. This is called clinical intuition/judgment.

So there is art to even the most well researched field like cancer research. It is not just the hallmark of coaches/fitness guruís as most of them arrogantly talk about.

Quote:
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.
I am not sure about that. We have so many cases in the past where millions of people believed in something which was later proven to be completely wrong.

For example, the humoral theory was the core theory of the western medicine from the 16th until the the 19th century. The most prominent doctors in that era cut your jugular veins if you were sick because that was the standard treatment based on it for almost 4 centuries. How did millions of people have it wrong for so many years?

Even overwhelming anecdotal evidences needs to stand the rigors of science. Thatís not me. Thatís from the entire scientific community.

Evidence based approach is limited. But it is 10 times better than anecdotal evidence.
Anoop Balachandran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2010, 07:49 PM   #24
Donald Lee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646
Default

[quote=Dave Van Skike;76381]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Lee View Post

nice try don.
I can't help it. I've flown across the country to take undergraduate science courses for an unfathomable cost in order to pursue a career I was actively avoiding. Plus, I'm studying right now for a Chem test tomorrow. Political science, the pseudo-science, was so much easier.
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2010, 07:54 PM   #25
Anoop Balachandran
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
There's also good reason why scientists contribute so little to the art and practice of athlete development.
You are just confusing causes.

I agree that there are not many studies on strength/athletics. That's because nobody wants to study to make people faster/stronger when there are people dying.

An example, an RO1 grant for a NIH researcher studying disease is 300,000 dollars every year for 5 years. This do not include over head costs.

An NSCA or ACSM grant is 5000 dollars. That's peanuts compared to an NIH grant.

So quality researchers and research and journals are obviously not in our field. Hence there is a lack of studies and application research.

So it is not the fault of science per se. And that doesn't make science inferior and anecdotal evidence superior.
Anoop Balachandran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2010, 08:08 PM   #26
Steve Shafley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,285
Default

The Soviets already did all this shit.
Steve Shafley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2010, 09:07 PM   #27
Garrett Smith
Senior Member
 
Garrett Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 4,368
Default

Well, the placebo or "power of suggestion" hasn't been addressed, as even in drug studies it seems to be getting stronger.

It isn't like reps can be "blinded", so subjects' prior biases/education could easily influence the study.

Anyway, this does all seem pointless. Why not interview the old drug-free bodybuilders and see what worked best for them, then go from there?
__________________
Garrett Smith NMD CSCS BS, aka "Dr. G"
RepairRecoverRestore.com - Blood, Saliva, and Stool Testing
My radio show - The Path to Strength and Health
Garrett Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2010, 09:24 PM   #28
Dave Van Skike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: PNW
Posts: 1,738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anoop Balachandran View Post
You are just confusing causes.

I agree that there are not many studies on strength/athletics. That's because nobody wants to study to make people faster/stronger when there are people dying.

An example, an RO1 grant for a NIH researcher studying disease is 300,000 dollars every year for 5 years. This do not include over head costs.

An NSCA or ACSM grant is 5000 dollars. That's peanuts compared to an NIH grant.

So quality researchers and research and journals are obviously not in our field. Hence there is a lack of studies and application research.

So it is not the fault of science per se. And that doesn't make science inferior and anecdotal evidence superior.
in the interest of intellectual rigor, i read most of the articles on your website.

you really should consider recreational drugs. you too, don.
__________________
Practical Strength
Dave Van Skike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 04:42 AM   #29
Donald Lee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Van Skike View Post
you really should consider recreational drugs. you too, don.
No thanks. I have other outlets, but it looks like marijuana will soon be legalized in CA. I will probably try a grass brownie some day.
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 09:22 AM   #30
Steven Low
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,091
Default

Re: hypertrophy

If some novice is coming to me I'm gonna put them on Starting Strength + GOMAD for hypertrophy. Then if they wanna do some high rep work after they stall out on linear progression thats great.

I'm pretty sure I don't need studies to tell me that this works. And if I did then what Shaf is saying seems more or less about right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Shafley View Post
The Soviets already did all this shit.
Fact of the matter is I used to have time to do read, debate, and write super long posts.. but it's just too time consuming and boring to do that now. Now I tend to write one liners for most everything if possible.

This does not mean I don't keep reading studies and researching stuff, but if someone is going to be questioning ME why something works they can go do that research for themselves. I will point them in the right direction. I'm not a beck and call Q&A machine (unless you're paying me for it in which case I'll answer all the questions you want).



If someone wants to go DO research then by all means go for it. Just make sure your studies are well made because at least 90% of the crap coming out now in pubmed is sample size <15. It's terrible.

I can ask 15 coaches/experts on the subject and get a MUCH better opinion than in most of these studies that are coming out now.

(As you can tell by reading all of the junk that is coming out now is jading my opinion on the matter).

What work is what works period. I'd LOVE to know the mechanisms behind why it works, but I don't NEED them.
__________________
Posts NOT intended as professional medical, training or nutrition advice.
Site // Bodyweight Strength Training Article // Overcoming Gravity Bodyweight Book

Last edited by Steven Low : 05-26-2010 at 09:29 AM.
Steven Low is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Subscribe to our Newsletter


Receive emails with training tips, news updates, events info, sale notifications and more.
ASK GREG

Submit your question to be answered by Greg Everett in the Performance Menu or on the website

Submit Your Question
WEIGHTLIFTING TEAM

Catalyst Athletics is a USA Weightlifting team of competitive Olympic-style weightlifters with multiple national team medals.

Read More
Olympic Weightlifting Book
Catalyst Athletics
Contact Us
About
Help
Newsletter
Products & Services
Gym
Store
Seminars
Weightlifting Team
Performance Menu
Magazine Home
Subscriber Login
Issues
Articles
Workouts
About the Program
Workout Archives
Exercise Demos
Text Only
Instructional Content
Exercise Demos
Video Gallery
Free Articles
Free Recipes
Resources
Recommended Books & DVDs
Olympic Weightlifting Guide
Discussion Forum
Weight Conversion Calculator