• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

Kyle Aaron

Active member
A study was done purporting to show that load doesn't matter for results.Since the study told the public what it wanted to hear - that easy works - it was widely and enthusiastically reported without any serious analysis or discussion. I corresponded with the authour, and he and his colleagues lack experience of genuine strength training.


In this video, the Starting Strength crew put more thought into analysing the study that the scientists put into making it.

 
A study was done purporting to show that load doesn't matter for results.Since the study told the public what it wanted to hear - that easy works - it was widely and enthusiastically reported without any serious analysis or discussion. I corresponded with the authour, and he and his colleagues lack experience of genuine strength training.


In this video, the Starting Strength crew put more thought into analysing the study that the scientists put into making it.

Hi Kyle,

I've also been in contact with the head of the team that conducted that study, Dr Stuart ("Stu") Phillips of McMaster University. He actually emphasised the point to me that this study is but one way/one method or approach to building muscle, saying that laod is still an important factor.

I think what we're seeing here is bit of a kneejerk reaction by scientists (or other), who are sick and tired of the mantra "no pain no gain" type of an approach. Or the fact that many (even on this forum) who still believe that intensity can only be defined as load, or the amount of weight on a bar. We all know that that is far from correct.

I wonder if these coaches actually did what you and I did in approaching and questioning the Professor regarding his study. We need more cooperation and less "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm this and you're that...", type of an approach, if we're to lessen the confusion that already exists amongst many bodybuilders.
 
I doubt these guys talked to the scientists. I encouraged the scientists to go talk to them, though. I gave Robert Morton the contact details of Sullivan, the lead guy on this panel - Toronto and Detroit aren't too far. Both sides sit there like little kids on either end of the playground waiting for the other to walk up and offer his hand first.

However, the paper should stand on its own. But Morton et al are never going to invite a barbell coach to come in and supervise a study. It'll never happen.

I talked to Morton, it wasn't productive. I've done the same with people like Sarah Berry, who writes on fitness for The Age. Stacks of them. "Come, see what we do." Nope. Their minds are not open, and they know nothing about productive training.

I mean - and this was missed by the panel - they didn't, despite what they say, follow the recommendations of the ACSM etc. They do NOT say that each set should be to failure.
 
It's not all lost Kyle. It's people like you and me who look at both groups and distill what there is to be distilled from such information and experiments, whilst leaving the rest for both groups to argue (or not to argue) about.

I sincerely thank you for such a giving and wise upload on your part Kyle. Your selfless attitude is very much appreciated Sir. Thanks again.
 
And the battle rages on.

Reminiscent of the Weider versus jones era.

Kyle, just do what you enjoy and don't get caught up in the politics.

if one lives in the the so called "high weight, low rep world" then one would be wise to add some type of aerobic component.

if one want to live the the other "low weigh, high rep world" then they better make the work of intensity high and the rest between set minimal.

either way the weight needs to be challenging and dare I say it, progressive.
 
... progressive.
One can write a whole book (and more) based on that magnificent and yet very much ignored and/or misunderstood of words, in the context of muscle hypertrophy. Even though I appreciated all your words there Andy, I thought it wise to join you in the emphasis of this most oft overlooked path to bodybuilding success: progression.

Thank you sir.
 
What most don't grasp fadi is that barbell work is not entirely efficient, although it being a miracle tool for building strength it has its limitations.

some machines are so effective only ine set is necessary to garner a response but only if the work is high, very high.

this created a big stir in the early 70's and whilst machines changed everything many of still refuse to believe it.

now, even if it was proven conclusively that high weight low rep was the best way to biuld strength, I'd still workout the way I have been, just because of its efficiency.
i consider los rep stuff under 5.
 
What most don't grasp fadi is that barbell work is not entirely efficient, although it being a miracle tool for building strength it has its limitations.

some machines are so effective only ine set is necessary to garner a response but only if the work is high, very high.

this created a big stir in the early 70's and whilst machines changed everything many of still refuse to believe it.

now, even if it was proven conclusively that high weight low rep was the best way to biuld strength, I'd still workout the way I have been, just because of its efficiency.
i consider los rep stuff under 5.

Now I know exactly what you do for a living Andy. You're a conductor, a brilliant conductor at that, where your words are no less powerful than the musical notes played by the variety of instruments in an orchestra..., all coming together to create one hell of a musical masterpiece...., in your case, it's a masterpiece that is full of beneficial information. I can't thank you enough sir!
 
Top