If you watch all of Sully's literature presentation / reviews from the SSCA conferences, you'll get the ones that we thought were good enough to at least criticise...
Jonathon Sullivan MD, PhD, SSC
✓ Member
Science with BARBELLS
Hey SSCs not sure if this is the right thread to post. I was wondering if there is any particular scientific journal or website that actually has studies done with proper weight training. Anything to do with the physics/anatomy/physiological adaptations that come with it. I keep trying to find good articles to look over so I can widen my knowledge and be able to deliberately/precisely tell people why they should train with barbells. Any help would be appreciated
Thanks, Nathan
Starting Strength Coach
If you watch all of Sully's literature presentation / reviews from the SSCA conferences, you'll get the ones that we thought were good enough to at least criticise...
Jonathon Sullivan MD, PhD, SSC
Member
RTFM
I am not a Starting Strength Coach (darn). My position is that you should read Starting Strength, 3rd edition. Once you've done so, you'll "get it". There is nothing like "the blue book". If you've already read it and you still feel the desire to ask the above question(s), read it again. I mean no disrespect.Originally Posted by Nathan Morgan
I think everything you are asking about is covered extremely well in SS3. If you feel like you thorougly understand SS3 and are tempted to continue to ask the above question(s), it may be time to move on.
Maybe you have the book. If you don't, it will set you back 23 bucks on Amazon. If you're not willing to spend the money, I get it... but don't expect the most highly paid strength coaches on the planet to allow you to ignore the blue book.
Once you have read and understood "the book", you will be well armed to either a) convince people of barbell lifting or b) buy a book for your intended audience (I lost count of how many I've bought). For older folks, consider "Barbell Prescription" - a compelling narrative for 40+ year olds containing advice to massively change "quality of life". (after which they'll need the blue book..are you starting to notice a pattern here?)
Finally, if you're not convinced, PM me and maybe we can have a private dialog. I'm happy to discuss this topic with you.
-john
Member
The blue book and seminar are certainly excellent systematic explorations of strength and barbell training. Absolutely no doubt. But there is a reason this article needed to be written; a grounding in the hard sciences that underlie it is very useful. Unfortunately, when you move away from the science textbooks and to the Ex-Phys journals, the actual experimentation is hit-or-miss with many more misses than hits when it comes to research about strength training.
The blue book, and the sciencey sections of PPST and TBP are better applied science about barbell and strength training than any other source that I know of. But a grounding in the actual hard sciences that undergird that stuff is very useful and good. One of the things that struck me when I first read SS - exactly 10 years ago, almost to the day - is how much better it comported with the hard science I had learned while obtaining my degree in Biology, including classes in Anatomy and Physiology, than any of the books on fitness I'd read on my own up to that point or what I had been taught as part of my "personal trainer certifications."
Member
Question 1 - I think this website may help to answer although "studies done with proper weight training" is arguably a subjective question.
Question 2 - The books, website, videos and coaches.
Question 3 - The books, website, videos and coaches but most importantly, you need to believe in what you're doing.
Your curiosity is encouraging. Understanding the Starting Strength body of work will get you where you need to be (IMHO).
This was my experience: Someone with credibility told me about SS. I bought the book that day. The rest is a blur.
Be sure to read the "this article" link in Michael Wolf's above post. It is germane and an excellent read.
✓ Member
Awesome replies everyone, trust me i have read THE BLUE BOOK 3 times now, going through a for a fourth time at the moment. I have also read Practical Programming twice, and Barbell Prescription! I am well versed in the SS literature i would say. I watch anything and everything on the SS channel, read all the articles i can. Steve Hill good idea, I have listened to those conferences, I just have never thought to read those articles myself. I think i was mostly just asking if there were any journals you coaches find semi worthy at least, so I could read some articles/experiments to see how they relate to the one TRUE way Starting Strength.
Michael, Yes i am fascinated by how the ex-sci literature is completely pseudo-science bullshit. There is this girl in one of my classes right now, trying to do a study to see if MFR has any effects on muscle performance/strength, and i just want to scream in her face! Starting Strength has connected with me so much, since i have a great mind/understanding for logic, physics, and now thoroughly enjoy anatomy more than i ever thought possible. I suppose my next best step is to make it to a Seminar in person, which I hopefully can this year!
Again you guys are awesome, thanks for all the encouragement as well. I will just keep re-reading the literature, delving deeper into the backlogged articles, and keeping up with videos as always. I also think i just need to talk to more people about this to learn to better communicate the importance of this to people
Last edited by Michael Wolf; 01-12-2018 at 12:28 PM. Reason: fixed the name of Sully and Baker's book.
Member
This kind of talk does make me a little uncomfortable. It seems that when a company, group, or individual gets really, really cocky that they've reached the ultimate end-point of knowledge on a subject, and they have nothing further to possibly learn and are not 99.9% but absolutely 100% sure about what they think they know - that's when someone else comes in and surpasses them, because of course we haven't reached the ultimate end-point of knowledge on any subject, and maybe never will.
So let's not say things like "The one true way!" while acknowledging that SS and the Aasgaard literature have compiled an exceptionally well thought out and logically coherent system of analyzing strength and barbell training, that is continually being revisited and refined as we learn more and try to think more logically about what we've already learned.
Are you in an ex-phys program now? What is MFR, myofascial release? Also, I do not recommend screaming in her, or anyone else's face, under any kind of normal circumstances.
Last edited by Michael Wolf; 01-12-2018 at 12:37 PM.
✓ Member
Wolf,
Yes my sincerest apologies on the wording of my last post. I am inherently a dry/sarcastic person, and I forget that is not interpreted well across the internet. I admire SS for what it is, yet like you said something better could come along. Which is one reason I love reading other views on strength training to see the comparisons.
As well as about the yelling, I would NEVER, do that to her, its just in my head. Again apologies. It's just frustrating that no one does their research anymore.
Yes I am in an exercises-sci program at the moment
In future I will be more careful with my words
Nathan
Member
I assumed you were exaggerating about screaming in her face, Nathan, I was just playing off your over-the-top comment.
It's interesting to me. We often talk, and disparage - probably in terms too broad and sweeping, as it's easy to do so in such cases - ex sci and ex phys programs. But the problems there are real. I'm curious what your impression is as someone who's currently going through one of those programs, but has read SS and found it a generally superior approach, if I'm reading between the lines of your comments correctly.
My degree is in Biology, and I had to take the "for majors" science courses along with a bunch of additional bio-specific classes. That by no means makes me anything close to an expert in biology, and such a statement would be laughable, but I had to at least wrestle with the information found in those courses.
My impression is that most ex sci/phys programs don't require their graduates to take any full "for majors" science courses, and you can then get a masters, and then even PhD in the field based on those previous degrees, without having ever studied the actual underlying hard sciences. Is this impression basically correct? While you can always have a self taught smart person who doesn't need a specific degree to generate interest and credibility (Rip, for example; or David Friedman - Milton's Son - who likes to jokingly brag about how he teaches economics at the university despite never having taken an economics course for credit in his life), I would think that a terminal academic degree in any field, especially a science, would require an actual background in the fields of knowledge that undergird their specialty. That was a long run-on sentence but I think you can get the gist of it.
Anyway, being in such a program, you're in a good position to evaluate the way it's done and what it produces, vs what we do here. When I was responsible for hiring new personal trainers for the department at Equinox, from roughly January 2007 to July 2010, I was shocked at how many graduates of ex-sci programs had absolutely no idea what they were doing. Including some with masters and even one with a PhD who I interviewed and knew within 2 minutes I'd never hire. I'm not talking about not being able to program for a super advanced competitive powerlifter or olympic lifter. Hell, I'm not even talking about basic barbell training! I'm talking about taking a regular person and teaching them how to correctly do some not entirely useless stuff in the gym, and putting them on a not entirely useless program. This basic skill was beyond most of them. I don't know what the degree did prepare them for, but it wasn't to actually teach people anything of use as trainers and coaches.
That's now 7.5 years ago, so maybe things have changed for the better since, but I doubt it.
✓ Member
Ok, I just wanted to be sure i was not going to offend anyone, that is never the intention.
As of right now my impressions of the Ex/sci program is a lot of misunderstood BS is being taught. All of my professors only see the cardiovascular side of things, essentially teaching endurance training is the best way to stay healthy. I do not understand how they have not seen any research on the contrary, explaining that STRENGTH is the BASIS of all human movement. The only type of "resistance" training I am learning about is how to use machines, program those properly. Oh and you never truly need to use heavy weights since you can just increase the volume and keep it "easy" on your joints. One of my professors even has stated that you do not even need to lift weights to get stronger, even using machines, you can just do things like BW exercises, bands... etc!
I do not know how to get these people to understand that WE as a species are built to have muscle. Built to be strong, and capable in our environment. That using barbells is the best way to load our bodies safely, progressively overload and continually get stronger for years and years. That loading the human body is actually the way to make us the healthiest, even giving you cardiovascular adaptations.
We are not required to take more than the base level science classes, Anatomy, Physiology, Physics. I learned a lot more in those classes that i can apply to strength training than any of the Ex/sci classes so far. There was one class in the major, an elective, principles of strength and conditioning. This has been the only class so far that has actually given me more knowledge in training for strength.
Thanks for the discussion, Wolf. I enjoy being a part of the community, I hope to spread the word to as many people I can.
Nathan
Posting Permissions