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

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

My wife has one but it's Apple and I'm Android but I'm also morally opposed to those devices.

SunWuKung420 posted...

My wife has one but it's Apple and I'm Android but I'm also morally opposed to those devices.

IYou don't need a smart watch even. A fitbit or literally any equivalent step tracker from any company you don't despise would approximate it well.

There's no good way to calculate calories burned by how much lifting X amount of pallets that weighs Y, but step trackers are good for approximating how active you are over the course of many hours. An office worker might do 3000 steps or less, someone like you might do 15000.

Bodybuilding gives you much more incremental feedback about the work you're doing compared to a performance-based sport, so people are more likely to be confused if they're wasting their time. Was this workout optimal for muscle growth? Did I do the right number of reps and sets? And then there's the factor of diet. You're monitoring all this over a period of weeks and months, often trying to discern differences in a mirror. With all that downtime, people turn to academia to validate what they're doing or learn new info.

If you're trying to get good at soccer, you get feedback right away whether you kicked the ball effectively or if your cardio sucks.

But people DEFINITELY major in the minors and obsess too much over scrutinizing science, often at the expense of just getting in the trenches and fucking lifting hard. Effort is one of the most lacking variables people have.

pinky0926 posted...

IYou don't need a smart watch even. A fitbit or literally any equivalent step tracker from any company you don't despise would approximate it well.

There's no good way to calculate calories burned by how much lifting X amount of pallets that weighs Y, but step trackers are good for approximating how active you are over the course of many hours. An office worker might do 3000 steps or less, someone like you might do 15000.

According to a quick Google, in an hour of constant walking at a moderate pace, you'd get to about 6000 steps. If I never stopped in 9 hours, that's 54k.

At 15k steps and my weight, that alone would burn 800 calories and doesn't include weight added from bulk boxes of produce or while pushing a cart that may weigh several hundred pounds. Based on the chart I referenced every 20 lbs of body weight adds on average about 10 calories burned per 1000 steps.

I'm fairly certain I walk more than 20k steps daily while also being in constant motion even when standing still. Adding in the grocery CrossFit, I going to estimate I'm burning at least 1300 calories on some days, not all. Today, I only ate 500 calories between waking up and getting home from work. I should see if my phone can be a step counter since it's in my back pocket 99% of the time I'm working.

pinky0926 posted...

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.

Oh yes, I've always logged everything. That's a big part of lifting imo. I've definitely made progress over time, but eventually you can't add more weight so I wasn't sure how to deload. I did do 5/3/1 for a bit with bench and squat, but I fell off of it.

Pow_Pow_Punishment posted...

Bodybuilding gives you much more incremental feedback about the work you're doing compared to a performance-based sport, so people are more likely to be confused if they're wasting their time. Was this workout optimal for muscle growth? Did I do the right number of reps and sets? And then there's the factor of diet. You're monitoring all this over a period of weeks and months, often trying to discern differences in a mirror. With all that downtime, people turn to academia to validate what they're doing or learn new info.

If you're trying to get good at soccer, you get feedback right away whether you kicked the ball effectively or if your cardio sucks. Sure, you could say the same about your performance under the iron, but building strength is also an extended journey just like building size/hypertrophy is.

I hadn't considered it from this angle. Lifting is a lot of statistical noise without a lot of instant feedback. No wonder so many are obsessed with getting a pump.

But people DEFINITELY major in the minors and obsess too much over scrutinizing science, often at the expense of just getting in the trenches and fucking lifting hard. Effort is one of the most lacking variables people have.

For sure.

pinky0926 posted...

I hadn't considered it from this angle. Lifting is a lot of statistical noise without a lot of instant feedback. No wonder so many are obsessed with getting a pump.

Exactly. It's also why so many trainers will do introductory workouts for clients with the aim of getting them sore so they FEEL like they did something. It doesn't always sell well to have someone start easy and then tell them "You'll notice results after 3 months."

C_Pain posted...

Oh yes, I've always logged everything. That's a big part of lifting imo. I've definitely made progress over time, but eventually you can't add more weight so I wasn't sure how to deload. I did do 5/3/1 for a bit with bench and squat, but I fell off of it.

Once you get past the low hanging fruit of newbie gains you're sort of in the territory where not everything works, progress is not linear and it moves on a slower timeline. That's why programs help. Kinda hard to track something that is supposed to undulate intensity/volume over 4-6 weeks without having an actual structure to it.

It seems like programs are mostly for compound exercise schemes right? Are isolation exercises just more straight forward?

Programs are just an organization of the exercises, not limited to compound or isolation movements.

If you're a seasoned bodybuilder, strict programming CAN be less important because you're basically a tissue assassin throwing whatever you can at your body to stimulate the muscle, and that happens to include more isolation exercises for individual muscle groups than other people and athletes need. You'd also be experienced enough at that point to know what to do in the gym.

For the vast majority of people, putting the emphasis on compound exercises is a better way to train (although isolation exercises should still be included at least sometimes) and a good program will help ensure you get enough recovery from these movements.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Were there exercises in there you don't normally do, or was it just more than you normally do, do you think?

Pow_Pow_Punishment posted...

Programs are just an organization of the exercises, not limited to compound or isolation movements.

If you're a seasoned bodybuilder, strict programming CAN be less important because you're basically a tissue assassin throwing whatever you can at your body to stimulate the muscle, and that happens to include more isolation exercises for individual muscle groups than other people and athletes need. You'd also be experienced enough at that point to know what to do in the gym.

For the vast majority of people, putting the emphasis on compound exercises is a better way to train (although isolation exercises should still be included at least sometimes) and a good program will help ensure you get enough recovery from these movements.

I usually do 1-2 compound at the start and then 3 isolation exercises. Is that reasonable? Compound are more winding so I can't do that many.

Also, do y'all think the type of split matters? I used to do PPL but now I just upper and lower days.

C_Pain posted...

I usually do 1-2 compound at the start and then 3 isolation exercises. Is that reasonable? Compound are more winding so I can't do that many.

That's pretty much how most programs go, yep.

Also, do y'all think the type of split matters? I used to do PPL but now I just upper and lower days.

I honestly think the only way of choosing one split over another depends on how many days you can reasonably train.

If you can do 6 days a week, PPL makes sense.
If you can do 4 days a week, upper/lower makes sense.
If you can do 3 days a week, full body makes sense.

You're basically trying to condense as much work as possible into however much time you have.

Bro splits have had a bit of a renaissance lately, although having an entire day dedicated to arms seems a bit silly, especially if you're dedicating just as much time to legs or back.

pinky0926 posted...

That's pretty much how most programs go, yep.

I honestly think the only way of choosing one split over another depends on how many days you can reasonably train.

If you can do 6 days a week, PPL makes sense.
If you can do 4 days a week, upper/lower makes sense.
If you can do 3 days a week, full body makes sense.

You're basically trying to condense as much work as possible into however much time you have.

Bro splits have had a bit of a renaissance lately, although having an entire day dedicated to arms seems a bit silly, especially if you're dedicating just as much time to legs or back.

That makes sense. I can only go 4 days reasonably so upper/lower had worked well for me. I do find lower days kind of boring though lol.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I think basically the best thing to do is log your work. If you're not an advanced lifter you should see incremental increases in load or reps each week.

Good to hear it!