tommy4life

Intro- I recently read this article on T-nation The Problem With “Exercise Science” on the lousy state of exercise literature. Whilst I am not familiar with the exercise literature I’m not surprised since I see something similar in the nutrition literature, and pretty much in all the humanities. I should mention that I am in academia, but in the applied biology and biotechnology field, not exercise. I am also a recreation lifter and I sometimes check out the nutrition literature as it's relevant to my field of study. Many of my colleagues in the food science sector often snigger at the nutrition academics/dieticians we meet at conferences.

Anyway, my question is this. Why don’t you or members of your staff try and publish in peer reviewed journals? I understand it might be hard for you to get past the filtering system, since you don’t have a PhD or academic affiliations, but you have several staff with PhDs. Maybe you even have a few members who are currently affiliated with research laboratories. Surely, if you and your staff/members collaborate you could produce a robust research paper with a sample size over n=10. You have access to hundreds of participants (I assume you have that since you have several SS gyms) to conduct experiments/observations on, which is hard to come by for most academics in that field. Do you believe this wouldn’t be worth it, or is it simply because you disdain the peer-review process and want nothing to do with it?

Mark Rippetoe

I don't see the point. Why would we want to improve their literature for them, when they don't even recognize that we exist? As Kirk said to Spock about the Klingons, "Let them die."

NicholasAstro

Hey Mark, curious about your opinion on the ideal body weight range for a lifter between 5’6 and 5’7 in height. I’ve been as heavy as 210 and started the program at 148. I had my best lifts at 198, and l like the way I look best around that weight. Anything under 190 and I think I look skinny. Thoughts?

Mark Rippetoe

Ed Coan was 242 at 5'5".