No.
As a former professional athlete, people at the top level always care about the research.
Relative to other sports, that is.You mean at the amateur level of sports? I'd imagine professional coaches do go into that level of detail.
Like you don't get a bunch of football bros or climbing bros getting into intense debate about the optimal training methodology to throw a better pitch or send a route. People aren't over on the soccer subreddit asking what the scientific research says about how much kicking volume is optimal for a beginner.
But you do get people who are into growing their muscles doing exactly this. The science based fitness community is its own beast now.
I know that people do study this stuff somewhere, but fitness is sort of unique in the sense that even the general layperson is out there trying to keep up with the research on sets and rep schemes and following "science based" training.
You mean at the amateur level of sports? I'd imagine professional coaches do go into that level of detail.
It is funny for weightlifting hobbyists to be so precise in some of these things though. I could see a case of wanting to be more efficient being positive for those who just don't want to spin their wheels trying to gain a certain physique. Get in, do the work well, get out fast, get swoll.
TC having trouble figuring out the science of their gains it sounds like.
We all remember that photo you posted lol
I have no doubt that at the top of every sport there are sports scientists who go into extraordinary granular detail on everything. No argument there.
The phenomenon I'm talking about is how even at the casual l layperson hobbyist level, people who are into lifting weights are far more interested in the scientific research than people into say, Jiu Jitsu, to a point where there's an entire meme culture of nerd fitness.
It's just a bit unusual, but I don't think it's entirely a bad thing.
When you get millions of dollars involved, pro sports will hire scientists to do the thinking for the athletes. They absolutely do care a lot and invest far more money and time into it then the average person doing fitness for themselves. They also have access to all kinds of shit most people don't for the purposes of efficiency and recovery.
No argument there.Ah I see what you mean. I guess when it comes to other sports, skill and experience beats all. Your success is measured by winning and not by your top running speed or whatever. In that sense practicing is and will always be the best thing you can do, and there's no real way to optimize it. The only thing better than practice is more practice.
I'm speaking more to how people casually into the hobby of lifting weights vs casually into the hobby of something like soccer - the lifting weights crowd are pretty invested in academic research on the topic. It's like reading the academia is part of the hobby for a significant number of people who otherwise have no business ever being an athlete.
I'm not really sure why this is. Maybe lifting is a nerdier sport. Maybe people need other factors to make it more interesting. Maybe it's just prone to a lot of charlatans who have identified that "science-based" sells.
To me it's all about making the most of my time in the gym. I want to be as productive, efficient, and safe as possible, and scientific research helps with that. No wasted movements/effort, no spinning my wheels, no getting hurt. Only progress.
What's funny is, the ones who usually care about the details aren't trying to maximize 30 minutes at the gym. They want to maximize their 1-2 hours, 4x a week gym session, lol.
An interesting phenomenon: there are many meathead gymbros who train stupid and are swole. There are no clever academics who train smart instead of hard and are swole.
An interesting phenomenon: there are many meathead gymbros who train stupid and are swole. There are no clever academics who train smart instead of hard and are swole.Agreed. I believe effort matters most, but training smart at the same time helps to be less wasteful of time and effort, not to mention safety.
You can get strong despite bad training if you just do it for long enough and consistently enough. But you can't outsmart a lack of effort.
The ideal would be someone who does both, but fundamentally I see training smart as optional but training hard as fundamental.
I'm guessing there's just no way to smartly train yourself into gaining large muscles with only 30 minutes a day, 3-4x a week right?
Is Rippletoes Starting strength still a thing? I'm still slightly annoyed at the amount of time I wasted doing the whole Starting Strength workout. Should have just done a bro split like everyone else instead of wasting time when I was young.
I mean, it's a fine program. I was just lying to myself when I told myself I cared more about strength than aesthetics.
I just wanna be a mass goblin. I wanna be Grizzly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzQQ1hjuDEY
I do :(
So much of the content is for men and it doesn't exactly work the same way for women. I've hit a plateau and not sure where to go from here.
I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the "average" person can reach peak physical performance in something like weightlifting if they stick to a strict, science base regimen.
Whereas, no matter how much research you do, so matter how many formulas and numbers you crunch, the "average" person either can or can't hit a baseball at an elite level.
I just think of myself. If I had the time and the means, I could turn myself into the physical peak of what someone my age could be. Good enough to rival anyone my age. Simply because the only thing holding me back is actually doing it.
But no level of training and scientific research will make me an MLB caliber baseball player, simply based on my physical limitations at 46 years old. So instead I'm just a pickup/beer league player.
Sure! Honestly, I think my diet is the problem, but it could be my weight training too.
1. I don't think my macros are right (I don't know what they should be) to slightly increase my muscle tone from what it is right now, but then lean out more. I know you have to do bulk and then lean. I try to get about 70 grams of protein a day.
2. I don't know if I should be doing heavy weights to near-failure or failure or lighter weights with more reps (also to near failure).
This is mostly a problem in my upper body. I can gain muscle tone very easily in my legs, so genetics is probably playing a role here. I feel like my upper body gains are just unchanging at this point, yet I still feel stronger than I did 1 year ago.
I'm 5'4" and 115 pounds.
2. I don't know if I should be doing heavy weights to near-failure or failure or lighter weights with more reps (also to near failure).
This is mostly a problem in my upper body. I can gain muscle tone very easily in my legs, so genetics is probably playing a role here. I feel like my upper body gains are just unchanging at this point, yet I still feel stronger than I did 1 year ago.
All good advice here. I'm not sure I have a weight-specific goal. I'd like to get my arms around 1.5 inches in circumference around the bicep and match my shoulders to my bicep growth. I would also like to have more muscle development around the top of my back. It's decent now, but could be better.
I suppose I should also clarify I'm wanting practical strength primarily, but visible muscle bulk and eventual leanness. It's a pretty tall order, I know.
I guess I never really thought about doing both. I've always stuck with one or the other. I wonder how often I should switch this up? Like each workout should be a variation?
You know, I haven't really added more weight each week as a regime. I should try this and I bet the variation here would be enough to get me out of this plateau.
I'm not on an official program as the ones I typically like are made for men and it gets exhausting translating it for me. I should probably just design my own at some point.
Pinky is into broscience?He's becoming Cary Elweights
Pinky is into broscience? That's cool. I got into going to the gym like 3 to 4 years ago, so I've been exposed to the research discussion and I find it so overwhelming. I feel like no one can agree on the optimal strategies, so I just have to pick something and hope it's right.
The bulking/cutting phase is one I've never been good at and honestly, it seems to easy for it to turn into an eating disorder of some sort.
I feel like you could use Leanbeefpatty as a benchmark for getting lean and buff from a woman's perspective. She's also like 5'3'' and like 130 pounds.
She has a few videos about what she eats in a day and dozens of videos on what her workouts look like. Also, like hundreds of shorts and Tiktoks on sets she does in the gym.
I still don't know what a program is really. That means aside from the exercises, it includes progression scheme? I also tried bulking and cutting once but I had a hard time losing the bulk weight.
It includes exercises, but also should account for volume (how much total work you're doing), frequency (how often you do the same things), progression and how to manage stalls (e.g. with deloading).Fuck, I haven't done that so that's why I haven't seen progress? How do you figure that out?
If it's well designed it accounts for how fatigue accumulates over weeks so you don't over reach too quickly by simply doing too much.
This is going to be my workout today :)
I think this might be the piece I'm missing. I was a high level athlete (soccer/football) since a very young age and played in college. I worked out all the time, but it was always just a trainer telling me what to do. No one ever taught me.
I tried MadMuscles recently and it just seems like every workout was geared towards shoulders and back. I tried customizing my workouts more with it, but I didn't care for it. Some days the workout would have the same exercise but in 10 sets.
I've always thought pinky looked like Cary Elwes, too.
Thanks! I'll check her out. An additional 15 pounds seems crazy to me, but I know it isn't.
Fuck, I haven't done that so that's why I haven't seen progress? How do you figure that out?
I did this today (about 20 minutes ago), but did lat pullovers instead of pulldowns because I don't have a cable machine. I did lunges in place of leg press.
I added an ab/core exercise to the end.
I think I might die. I am going to be so sore, which is good.
People aren't over on the soccer subreddit asking what the scientific research says about how much kicking volume is optimal for a beginner.