TMPHBITEU
Panel Discussion from the SSCAC: Easy Doesn't work, Long and Edited versions
Member
Whye can't you guys put together your own study? Four Doctors at the round table there, jeesh!
. . .get some college bros, make them do the SSLP.
pit that against the typical 8-to-12-rep-scheme-no-intra-set-rest the national ex.sci.organizations recommend.
This should be your top priority (especially in light of what Sully & CJ explains at 1h:33m )
TMPHBITEU
Thanks for deciding our top priority for us. Makes it a lot easier to move forward now.
Member
Someone appears not to be aware of the data being collected by the SSCA at large, I think.
Member
AwareOriginally Posted by tertius
Not the same.
I suggest a Study pitting the two strength training methodologies directly against each other, like McMasters Universities did.
The SSCA client database thing will simply be interpreted by academia as "resistance training" is a good thing. . . ."we have lots of studies showing that already".
What is optimal, and the hows and the whys are the crux of the issue.
Member
Are people actually citing this paper to starting strength coaches and requesting that they be programmed to do higher reps, lower weights?
TMPHBITEU
Not in our gyms.
Member
It would be entirely appropriate to publish a study demonstrating the effectiveness of the method on its own. The difference in effect size should be readily apparent.
After that, sure, maybe other researchers will be interested in doing a comparison.
Um. No. I'm willing to wager that the 'typical' results from SSCA client data are going to be met with screams of incredulity, etc from the bulk of the exercise science establishment.
Because again, the effect size is rather different.
Member
funny, the round table over at T-nation does . . . lol . . . more specifically who is Mitch Cavert?
Tip: Don't Neglect Light Weights for Muscle Growth | T Nation
But a new Canadian study claims you can reap the same effects by lifting lighter weights with more reps. Scientists out of McMaster University say that as long as you're lifting to the point of exhaustion (i.e. failure), your muscles will strengthen and grow. . . . .
. . . .recruited 49 healthy, strong men. They had been lifting weights for at least four years and visited the gym three to five times a week consistently in the lead up. (215 max BP...lol) . . . .
. . . .high and low-rep training (low and high load, respectively) elicit a comparable stimulus for muscle hypertrophy and strength when resistance exercise is performed until failure. The study summarizes by suggesting lifting heavier and lighter loads should not be mutually exclusive, but instead be utilized during different training blocks.
Lex
I definitely do not think it is a priority to produce such a study for the mere reason that we want to show the world we are right and they aren't. Plus we know our methods work versus theirs which is the main thing. Any other study that will be produced to disprove the currently popular study will be met with another work to disprove it. It is a cycle that happens sadly, and who will listen? Rip tried to get Crossfit to listen and they wouldn't, Starr wrote a wonderful book and hundreds of articles and still people haven't listened. People in the industry want to cater to their clients need for comfort and ease, which is why machines and light weights are popular and you see studies like the one the panel spoke on. Some people can't be reasoned with, no matter what study you produce.
Posting Permissions
