Current Events > It's kinda weird how fitness is obsessed with scientific research, right

(+) Yeah! (+)

Relative to other sports, that is.

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.

No.

As a former professional athlete, people at the top level always care about the research.

Glob posted...

No.

As a former professional athlete, people at the top level always care about the research.

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.

pinky0926 posted...

Relative to other sports, that is.

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.

emblem-man posted...

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.

Exactly, at the amateur level. And quite often this causes decision paralysis/fuckarounditis, or the culture of biohackers who are trying to replace hard work with gimmicky sciency-sounding quick fixes.

TC having trouble figuring out the science of their gains it sounds like.

We all remember that photo you posted lol

HorsemnBusiness posted...

TC having trouble figuring out the science of their gains it sounds like.

We all remember that photo you posted lol

No actually, I have no issue there.

Its exhausting.

Ima just go to the gym, try to eat right and listen to my body. Its working for me, it aint that deep. Yall science nerds go work on some equations.

pinky0926 posted...

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.

Tyranthraxus posted...

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.

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.

pinky0926 posted...

No argument there.

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.

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.

Exercise physiology isnt exactly a large or super well supported/funded research field, we have a decent handle on the basics and common best practices but a lot of the specifics are still considered theory so theres quite a debate amongst some people when it comes to optimization. Though arguably optimal exists on a spectrum and is different for everyone.

A large portion of everything we know today about exercise science came from places like Russia in the early/mid 1900s, weve learned a lot since then but havent gotten too much further really.

It makes sense because people really into fitness/lifting are ultimately nerds.

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.

LoveLikeJazz posted...

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.

emblem-man posted...

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.

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?

pinky0926 posted...

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.

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.

pinky0926 posted...

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.

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.

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.

emblem-man posted...

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?

30 minutes is really pushing it. I mean that's like just my warmup and squat sets.

45 minutes is doable though for sure. There's a guy on reddit who has been training this way for 10 years and he's swole as fuck (/u/mythicalstrength). There's no secret really, he just trains with an eye watering level of intensity. Imagine doing sets of deadlifts for 10 repetitions and then without any break going into sets of 20 squats, and then sets of overhead press, and then pullups, and then 30 seconds rest and then repeat. That's how he trains. Over time he just built up a ridiculous work capacity, so he squeezes in so much density in his workouts.

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.

More people should be honest about their goals for sure. I think a lot of people want to pretend they're into "functional" strength but what they really mean is "I want to look jacked but also do cool stuff like flip tractor tyres".

Starting strength still exists, but it's taken a beating in terms of reputation and it's not the routine people recommend anymore. Eventually people figured out that if you train minimally and only in one way then you only get minimal and specific results. A coach potato with no sports history should do a bunch of stuff other than squats for sets of 5 if they ever plan on becoming halfway athletic.

A great program that does a better job of reaching the goals for novices than SS does is GZCLP. It basically keeps the workouts quite simple but has more volume, addresses deloads better and allows a range of rep ranges, intensity and variation.

Yeah. Lack of training during COVID (plus I started jogging very regularly during then and lost muscle) and just life stuff kept me out of lifting regularly.

Right now I'm just trying to do the main lifts at the gym as quickly as possible (45-60 minutes, 3-4x a week), and doing lots of pullups, pushups, light dumbbell stuff at home in spare time. My goal now really is to just get to a certain level of muscular definition, and then really dig into stretching and flexibility, especially as I'm getting older.

I just wanna be a mass goblin. I wanna be Grizzly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzQQ1hjuDEY

wanderingshade posted...

I just wanna be a mass goblin. I wanna be Grizzly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzQQ1hjuDEY

You know I never realised he was so tall. He always seemed like a squat goblin man. M'lord is huge for real.

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.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Same as medical science! Nearly all of it is tested on men.

Wanna unpack it? Can't say I'll know what you could do but it might be fun to talk about.

bigblu89 posted...

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.

This is an interesting idea. I wonder if it's that there's a lot of barriers to even getting appropriate training in baseball (it's a team sport, you need a coach and a team and doing a lot of stuff thats out of your control), whereas working out is entirely autonomous.

My viewpoint is trust your body more than you trust science but few people agree.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


part 1:
Aside from protein (which you're getting enough of, just*) I think fat and carb macros are very individual. You can make academic arguments about what's "optimal" but ultimately what dictates diet success is adherence and what dictates adherence is how much you don't hate your diet. That's why people can a lot of success with a range of diets (vegan, paleo, mediterranean, keto, etc etc). If you try a diet type that people swear by and you hate every second of it, try something else. As long as it adheres to basic principles of nutrition you're good.

Small caveat. "eat whatever if it fits your calorie amount") is easy for bulking. For cutting, you're sort of bound to have to cut fat at some point simply because it's so calorie dense. If you try and eat a small amount of calories while keeping fat high, your meals will be miserably small.

Are you actually trying to bulk and then cut to a reasonable degree in either direction? People tend to plateau early if they aren't actually gaining a reasonable amount of weight for a reasonable amount of time. As far as women are concerned, the principle is still the same, but just scaled down slightly (so instead of 2lbs of gain per week, maybe 1lb per week) and it's harder to track week on week (because your cycle makes water retention kinda fucky).

Basically what I'm saying is, if you set the goal of putting on 20lbs over the course of say 5 months, you'd definitely be stronger and you'd develop a lot of muscle. Even 5lbs of muscle on your frame would be look really significantly different. Then set a goal to cut whatever extra fat you gained in like 6 weeks of dieting (because you can cut much faster than bulk). Caveat here is you sort of have to be ok with being heavier than you'd like, for a time. But if you did it this way you'd absolutely make gains I think.

*This is one area where it seems like women don't actually need less protein per lb than men. They just tend to be a lot lighter in general. 0.6grams to 0.8grams per lb of bodyweight is about right, so your 70grams seems ok there.

Part 2:

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.

You should probably be doing both. Set and rep schemes matter less than total volume and overall progress in loading and volume. Variation is useful though.

Again and again research shows that you can grow across a range of sets and reps and that volume is what drives growth. Basically, do more stuff over time to get more big.

If you can do it, linear progression (where you just add more weight each session or week) is the fastest way. If you are sufficiently advanced this doesn't work anymore and you have to follow a "periodised" approach where your volume and intensity undulates over a 4-6 week cycle. Basically, more advanced athletes have to fool around with doing lots of volume with light weights or lots of heavy shit in a sort of wave pattern. They do both, and it's all part of a larger plan that resets in a 4-6 week cycle.

Are you on a program?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Honestly, I think this is what everyone wants. To be stronger, bigger and leaner. It's not an impossible order, but there's just no one program or one diet that has it all arrive at the same time year round. Part of the wisdom I've learned in lifting is that you have to be comfortable at times with feeling shitty or looking shitty. To grow significant muscle you have to be less lean than you'd like for a while and in turn cutting weight to get "beach ready" makes you feel weak and hate everything. The instagram life of people walking around looking perfect all the time is a farce.

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 don't want so much variation that you are just confused and relearning things every workout, but it's good to have some variety in set/rep patterns in the same movements. So for example, I follow a program that has follows this sort of pattern:

day 1:

• Main lift: heavy squats for 5 sets of 3
• Secondary lift: light bench press for 3 sets of 10
• Accessory: lat pulldown for 3 sets of 15
• Squat accessory (e.g. leg press) for 3 x 15
• Bench accessory (e.g. dumbbell press) for 3 x 15

Day 2:
Same thing but now the main lift is bench and the secondary is squats.
Day 3:
Main lift deadlift, overhead press is secondary

etc.

So with that, you've got a focus on strength in one lift and then some lighter work on a different muscle group, so you're not too taxed.

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.

That is key. Progressive overload is really the main thing that matters regardless of what program you do. That's why programs are good, because they push you to go for more weight/reps/sets continuously.

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.

Curious about this bit. Designed for men like they focus on muscles that men like, or have jumps in weight that are too large, or something else?

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.

C_Pain posted...

Pinky is into broscience?

He's becoming Cary Elweights

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.

C_Pain posted...

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.

I'm exactly the nerd I'm making fun of in this topic.

I think "optimal" is a completely useless thing to try and guess at. There's never going to be any specific program, diet or training advice that works for everyone that you can just dole out as some kind of holy template. There's just principles and how to adapt to how you respond.

Like I said before, there's lots of gymbros who get really big and strong and never learned anything about training smart, they just continued to train. On the other hand I don't think there are any broscientists who have become world class bodybuilders or athletes without actually applying consistency and effort.

80-90% of the results is just showing up and doing shit for years.

emblem-man posted...

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.

There is that for sure.

I think if you're happy with slower and more mediocre results at the benefit of not losing your mind, then gaintaining or body recomp or whatever you want to call it is a safer option.

I find that approach a little hard personally because I need to see some sort of discernable progress, either visually or statistically. I find it hard if there's not short and long term objectives, and admire people who just train for the fun of it.

wanderingshade posted...

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.

Yeah this is really good advice. She's a beast.

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.

I think a lot of the nerd talk comes from facts just not being in yet or having only come in recently. Like we can debate who beats who in hypothetical Star Wars fights. We don't actually know, so we're using whatever evidence we do have which makes us weird ametuer detectives/scientists.

It wasn't long ago there were all of these insane optimizations. It turns out that a lot of them don't really matter, but at the same time may matter if you have certain genetics that they apply to.

The general rule of thumb has been dumbed down to very basic shit like, "Progressive overload and don't hurt yourself." because it turns out that was all that was needed for mpst people. This is much less exciting than our weird science based fanfics that we woukd argue about in the past.

C_Pain posted...

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).

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.

pinky0926 posted...

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).

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.

Fuck, I haven't done that so that's why I haven't seen progress? How do you figure that out?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I follow GZCLP ("gzcl" is the guys online moniker, "LP" stands for Linear progression, which was something recommended in various forums and on reddit. Basically it allows you to progress multiple lifts across different set and rep schemes, so you get that sense of training for strength and training for hypertrophy.

You can find it for free on boostcamp, which is itself a pretty neat training app.

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.

Might be worth checking out brett contreras' strong curves, which is a pretty neat training plan focused on the aesthetics that a lot of women seem to want, if that matters to you. Lots of glutes, quads, abs, etc. But it's still built on sound training principles.

There's a subreddit: /r/strongcurves, which might be a neat place for women who train to hang out. There's also /xxfitness.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I get that a lot. On my best day I got Alexander Skarsgrd. On my worst...Macauley Culkin.

Thanks! I'll check her out. An additional 15 pounds seems crazy to me, but I know it isn't.

Muscle is a lot leaner than fat basically. 15lbs of fat would be a pretty significant amount of physical mass.

C_Pain posted...

Fuck, I haven't done that so that's why I haven't seen progress? How do you figure that out?

Honestly, you probably shouldn't try and figure it out. Get on a well-vetted program and just follow it. Most of them follow pretty simple progression plans. "add 5lbs to your squat each week until you can't, then change the rep scheme". That kind of thing.

Some I recommend:

• GZCLP
• Wendler's 5/3/1
• Greyskull LP

If you really don't want to do any of that, then at least log your lifts and try to progress them in some way each week. More weight, more reps, more sets. Do more than last time.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Nice! As above, the program is GZCLP. Deep dive on that here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/6pjiwd/heres_a_quick_summary_of_the_gzclp_linear/

People aren't over on the soccer subreddit asking what the scientific research says about how much kicking volume is optimal for a beginner.

Running experiences similar, tbh. Steady state vs interval training, twice a day vs daily vs bidaily, etc. Decent amount of nutrition regarding stuff like timing carb intake to when you have a big race, for example.

95% of it is just "always strive to do it for longer or faster. Stick with it.", especially for beginners, but there's always someone who wants to do it the latest and greatest way from some fashionable and trendy sports personality.

I wonder if there's any way to calculate how many calories I burn during a 9 hour shift (no breaks by choice) at the grocery store when I'm breaking down 7 pallets of produce products in a refrigerated room.