NYT: In a Hurry? Try Express Weight Training

[dbactual]

Do you mean what new hypotheses or theories could be explored to improve strength training?

Yes. Presumably those conducting these studies are familiar with SS, and the principles of building strength in a novice lifter. Why are studies created/funded/carried out in such a way as to confound the approach, and seemingly ignore what actually makes people build strength?

Indeed a bigger question, but the NY Times is not actually the problem here. The problem is the study itself. Basically the novice effect would explain the ease of adaptation, although testing strength gains with 1 RMs in novices is meaningless per se. Specifically how does one quantify the statistical significance of the increase? I once pressed 165 for a single. Is that my 1 RM? Doing that single probably raised my 1 RM. Could I have done more on a different day, when I wasn't as tired? Was my form good? Let's say I did manage 170 for a single the next day. Did I increase my 1 RM by training? Or is this just noise? Too many variables, too little control.

Other than that all they've shown is that greater volume induces muscular hypertrophy. Nothing new there. And even then their point of decreased training time is moot, since 5x5 is basically equivalent to 3x8, which would probably equivalently serve the training purpose of muscular hypertrophy in a novice anyway and still reduce the workout time.

This is a good rebuttal, thanks. For longer term strength improvement, there is a strong correlation between muscle size and strength (as far as I understand things), which means putting in more volume over time is required to advance. More intensity is also required (to practice handling heavier loads), but the details of how much and how often are sometimes confusing to me.

[Eric Schexnayder]

Yes. Presumably those conducting these studies are familiar with SS, and the principles of building strength in a novice lifter. Why are studies created/funded/carried out in such a way as to confound the approach, and seemingly ignore what actually makes people build strength?

This is a much better question for Rip, and I'm sure he won't hesitate to give you an answer. He's written about it here, in case you haven't read it.

If I had to guess - and that is precisely what I am doing - I'd say it's because the vast majority of individuals probably exercise for the sake of improving or maintaining conventionally accepted health markers (blood pressure, blood sugar, resting heart rate, waistline, BMI) and not strength per se. So research is oriented towards providing information to providers of these kinds of programs. I.e. - "we know cardio is good for your heart, so we buy ellipticals, treadmills, and bikes for you to ride. Come join our gym!" or "Here's a new fast muscle building class that only takes 13 minutes!". Or in the case of the NYT article, click-bait. It all comes down to money.

This is a good rebuttal, thanks. For longer term strength improvement, there is a strong correlation between muscle size and strength (as far as I understand things), which means putting in more volume over time is required to advance. More intensity is also required (to practice handling heavier loads), but the details of how much and how often are sometimes confusing to me.

Muscular hypertrophy is definitely key to strength improvement. Greater force production comes from greater muscle cross sectional area. But there is also training of the neuromuscular system as a whole: training motor units to fire muscle fibers that may not fire at submaximal weights. This is why we see advanced lifters cycle between volume and intensity, like in the Texas Method. A more advanced lifter must train both for muscular size and neuromuscular efficiency; he will cycle high volume days through different rep schemes, like 8s or fahves, with multiple sets to accumulate volume and promote growth. But he must also introduce the occasional triple, double, or single, because unless you are handling limiting loads you are not training all motor units in a muscle group to fire.

A novice needs none of these. He can get away with fahves for several months. And even an intermediate will get away with this for a long time.

[dbactual]

Thanks for the link, and thanks for the informative summary.

[bracemaker]

The biggest problem is that "studies" are performed by people touted as "experts" who don't know what they are doing.

Then, "writers" who don't know know any better, and naive to the subject, write an article based on the findings of the "experts" and citing the "studies."

Journalism in a nutshell.

[Barry Charles]

The comments from readers are better than the article. One guy, for example, says he flaps his arms 100 times ever day and claims he is a beast.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Characterizing the observation as naive or uninformed is only of limited use. What assumption(s) should instead be made to advance strength training?

Side note: if the New York Times is this clueless about reporting the significance of such studies, how can we rely on their reporting on any other topic? I realize this is a bigger question.

From Michael Crichton's 2002 essay "Why Speculate?"

Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.

But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

[Frankie]

I only read this article and comments because I was bored and felt like getting upset about something. I was not disappointed.

At least an advantage I can see with a new breed of 13 minute warriors is they will be vacating the Curl Rack faster so the grownups can do their work.

[Eric Schexnayder]

I only read this article and comments because I was bored and felt like getting upset about something. I was not disappointed.

I actually hadn't read any until you posted this, and then I found this little gem, which I think supports my guess I made earlier:

The premise of this article is wrong at its core. It assumes that gaining strength is a desirable objective in and of itself for most people. Sure, one can build some (I stress “some”) strength on limited numbers of sets. Most trained athletes would tell you that based on their own personal experience. However, most people are in the gym to achieve one of a couple objectives: a better body (more muscle, less fat), or numerical improvements in health (which is basically another way of saying a better body). For those goals, a little strength improvement will not make a dent. The article alludes to this point when it qualifies that muscle mass was not improved among the study participants.

For whatever reason, there is still a disconnect in the mainstream fitness world between the pursuit of strength and the achievement of these other goals. Granted he's probably right - a little strength improvement probably won't help these significantly. But if I had to guess, I'd say he's probably right but for the wrong reason. I may be wrong myself.

[Fulcrum]

some guy: The premise of this article is wrong at its core. It assumes that gaining strength is a desirable objective in and of itself for most people. Sure, one can build some (I stress “some”) strength on limited numbers of sets. Most trained athletes would tell you that based on their own personal experience. However, most people are in the gym to achieve one of a couple objectives: a better body (more muscle, less fat), or numerical improvements in health (which is basically another way of saying a better body). For those goals, a little strength improvement will not make a dent. The article alludes to this point when it qualifies that muscle mass was not improved among the study participants.

apparently, that guy can't read goodly

The Study: RESULTS: ...Alternatively, while all groups increased muscle size in most of the measured sites from pre-to-post intervention, significant increases favoring the higher volume conditions were seen for the elbow flexors, mid-thigh, and lateral thigh.

but it would be easy to discredit the article, by saying that the "quick n easy" group lost out because the group who did more work built more muscle.

[Espen Lund]

I did myself a favor and stopped reading after this comment. Although some forum users here might agree (hypertrophy and long term progress and jada jada..)

"I am not a lifting enthusiast. Even with my limited knowledge, however, I knew strength and hypertrophy are distinct goals requiring different training. Honestly, I thought that was common knowledge. More reps for hypertrophy, more weight for strength.

The article is written as if this were a totally new and unexpected insight vs. confirmation of common practice. "