What about the TM variants recommended in the "12 Ways to Skin The Texas Method" article as far as TM being suboptimal goes? I'm not sure if they are modified enough to be productive or if the article is not up to date with your current experiences.
They didn't run TM proper- it was heavily modified and coached.
[QUOTE=pshotsb17;1569001]Is there a controlled study on any program anywhere with a sample size large enough to be meaningful that shows that that program is superior to any other program?[QUOTE]
Yes- though you have to do some mental gymnastics to look at the variants of DUP analyzed in the literature and the Nordic PL studies to see their average gains in their cohorts suggest the shortcomings I bring up in my article on the TM are, in fact, real.
No, it's really not. Say you have an expansive coaching practice and you get a couple hundred thousand exposures to training and subsequent results while pulling large amounts of somewhat controlled data continuously. You might run experiments of varying types over this time and see trends that guide further management based on the experimental evidence. You would not really need to control this stuff in a "training ward", rather you would do it in a free living environment like your subjects are located. This is what I do continuously.It is impossible to prove any program is better than any other unless we get 10000 identical humans and run them through identical programs in identical environments.
I disagree. I think that there are a handful of cohorts that each person falls into and once identified, we can predict their outcomes based on the intervention. Sure, each cohort has a continuum of needs for stress, adaptation, and responses, but most folks fall into 1 of 4 different categories when it comes to responses to resistance training. This is also supported by evidence.I really think programming is unique to every single person out there.
This is an oversimplification that is meaningless here.All we know is stress creates a response and requires rest before re-stress.
Depends on what you mean by rule, but I feel very comfortable doing this daily.To create a rule for how much stress and how much recovery is really impossible to predict for anybody.
Best thing who has?SSLP is the best thing we have, but beyond that, nada.
It sounds like you may not understand how a group of people may, over a period of time, learn things and apply them. But I do have a program for a bigger penis. Link in bio.Everyone needs to figure it out on their own and stop paying for bullshit programs as though they were the secret to a bigger penis.
Yes.
That's unlikely to be enough either IMO.As time goes by, I increasingly find myself wondering if I shouldn't be doing more 3x3 type DL volume as opposed to the single top set model.
What about the TM variants recommended in the "12 Ways to Skin The Texas Method" article as far as TM being suboptimal goes? I'm not sure if they are modified enough to be productive or if the article is not up to date with your current experiences.
My guess would be what those 4 different categories are, and what programming needs these categories would suggest be used. My personal hope is the four humors. I somehow doubt it though...
1) Low initial level of strength (untrained), poor response to training
2) Low initial level of strength (untrained), robust response to training
3) High initial level of strength (untrained), poor response to training
4) High level of initial strength (untrained), high response to training
The parameters adjusted are volume, intensity, exercise frequency, and cycle length. In general, the poor responders need more volume , frequency, and longer cycles. High responders can leverage a bit more intensity. Absolute amounts of each of these will vary between cohorts markedly, but within cohorts not as significantly.