Putting It All Together

[Zane-eac]

I don't have the posts to back up the authoritative tone I'm going to post in, so what I'm writing will have to speak for itself. I think this might actually be best.

I've been reading bodybuilding.com and these forums for quite some time now, and have some problems with what I've read sometimes. I'm going to assert my position on each arguable point and would like to hear input from other posters.

If you've read as much science/theory as I have, you know that many things often conflict. Optimizing your training is a VERY hard thing to do. I feel that well over 90% of bodybuilding enthusiasts don't (myself included).

I've been fortunate enough to be friends with an ISSA personal trainer, and have read their manuals. One thing that stood out to me is that a workout MUST be catered to the individual. Any routine claiming to be a solve-all for everyone is therefore nonsense. There are also a few other things the ISSA claims that I'd like to address. I'm having a hard time making this fluent, but I'll do my best.

Optimal Rep Speed
The ISSA claims that you may get the most muscle stimulation by accelerating the positive motion of an excercise all the way to the top. This is because your muscles respond to force, and force=mass*acceleration. They also claim that "faster" reps will allow you to exert more force before lactic acid build-up inhibits your performance.

Now this sounds good and all, but conventional wisdom tells us this just isn't possible all the time. That would mean that you smash the dumbells together at the top of your peck flies. Furthermore, I wouldn't be able to keep the strict form needed to really feel that excercise.

So here is my revised solution:
Make an effort to accelerate through the positive motion of each excersise, but without sacraficing form or muscle contraction.

I think I'll stop for now with just this one topic and see what kind of feedback I get. I plan also to adress Routine/Split create, Rep Ranges, Excercise Selection, Routine Variety, and Intuitive vs. Scientific approaches to weight lifting, among other things.

[John Prophet]

its very hard to find anything "authoritative" in strength training...probably even less in bodybuilding

I mean, to me, the Russian research is backed by hundreds of Gold medals and world records....the guys writing the Russian manuals are for the most part THEMSELVES Gold medal winnders/record holders....yet people dont pay attention to the Russian research

so to say "The ISSA claims...."......hehe, that and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee but thats about it

[Zane-eac]

Originally Posted by John Prophet

its very hard to find anything "authoritative" in strength training...probably even less in bodybuilding

I strongly disagree. Just about every canned workout program speaks as a solve-all for your workout needs. Take the Max-OT training program which states:

Whether you're looking to pack on a massive 50 pounds of muscle or a trim and tight 5 pounds, Max-OT is the most effective way to accomplish this

Originally Posted by John Prophet

I mean, to me, the Russian research is backed by hundreds of Gold medals and world records....the guys writing the Russian manuals are for the most part THEMSELVES Gold medal winnders/record holders....yet people dont pay attention to the Russian research

I don't know if this is supposed to accomplish anything, but if you want people to "pay attention" to Russian research, you could, perhaps, explain what the research states and compare it to its western counterpart. The fact that people don't pay attention to it is a moot point. Most people don't follow the ISSA, does that mean it's not a valid organization? Of course not, it's just that the ISSA charges around $500 for you to access their material.

Originally Posted by John Prophet

so to say "The ISSA claims...."......hehe, that and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee but thats about it

I don't know what you're trying to say here. You've really added nothing to this thread, and have been vaguely critical with no specifics. For example, if you disagree that Force= Mass * Acceleration, kindly say so and I will be happy to prove you wrong.

As to not being able to site the ISSA, that goes with the nature of the way they disperse information. The closest I can come is to link to a trainer re-iterating the ISSA concepts, stating:

11. Hypertrophy stimulation is a result of the total amount of rebound protein synthesis in response to protein degradation during training. Total protein degradation is itself the result of the rate of protein degradation and the time spent degrading. The time under tension of a set (duration of a set) will determine the time spent degrading proteins. What factor has the greatest influence of the rate of degradation?

The rate of protein degradation is influenced mostly by the amount of tension present in the muscle. The intramuscular tension refers to the effort of the muscle necessary to produce a certain force output. We already know that force is equal to mass x acceleration, so it should also be evident that intramuscular tension will be influenced by the magnitude of the load and the acceleration one has to transfer to the resistance. In simpler words, you can increase intramuscular tension by increasing the weight or the acceleration (or both).

You can find that passage (among others) at:
http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle....04-047-feature.

Future installations will be referenced when possible. Any criticism of anything specific being stated will be happily addressed. You owe me a coffe.

Cheers!
Zane

[John Prophet]

your right....with the authoritative tone, showing up with the "I know it all attitude", you wont get much response, lol......this was halfway down the second page on its way to obscurity when I bumped it



and you misunderstand what I say...maybe its my fault.....I said its hard to find anything authoritative....I didnt say it was hard to find anything CLAIMING to be authoritative......BIG difference

everyone and their brother CLAIMS to know it all...half of the routines claim to be "fix-alls"

So I am not sure what your particular angle is...but "science" as relating to weightlifting, powerlifting, and especially bodybuilding, leaves quite a bit to be desired

[all pro]

O.K. Zane-eac, read my sig. Speed x strength = POWER !
This is not a revelation to a performance athlete. It is only news to bodybuilders.

[Zane-eac]

Originally Posted by all pro

O.K. Zane-eac, read my sig. Speed x strength = POWER !
This is not a revelation to a performance athlete. It is only news to bodybuilders.

Well then, it's a shame I'm no performance athlete. Hopefully you'll stay tuned for future installments and add your input as a performance athlete to combine with bodybuilding principles.

[Retardo-pex]

Every institute which is a legit certification agency will have thier own spin off of thier own training types.

Take NASM for example, thier style of training known as optimum performance training also has years of research to back up what it claims. To sum it up, its a 3 phase periodization cycle with 7 total microphases within it. The first pahse focusing on stability and overall improving a person's biomechanics to maintain correct posture or perhaps rehab an injury, the 2nd is strength training, which includes hypertophy and maximal strength, and the third is power training which incorporates speed into the strength training to develop maximal contractile force in the shortest amount of time.

I garntee they will differ with ACE or ISSA on many acounts such as rest time rep speed recovery and things of that nature, but that doesn't mean they are wrong, it also doesn't mean ACE or ISSA is wrong either. Its difficult to be "The Authority" on something which has the potential to be debated so much. Reading the 500$ book of one organization doesn't open the world of muscle building up to you entirely, because somene else just grabbed another credible organization's 500$ worth of materials and may have read something which contradicts what your book says.

The science will always be there, and studies are proven and disproven every day. Currently there is no "One" source of all the right information out there, for like John said, most of us in the western hemisphere would not train like the russians but it sure is working for them. It doesn't mean one is wrong and one is right it just means that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

[Zane-eac]

Originally Posted by Retardo-pex

Every institute which is a legit certification agency will have thier own spin off of thier own training types.

I was unaware of other reputable institutes, however, I would like to learn more. Do you have any links to resources?

Take NASM for example, thier style of training known as optimum performance training also has years of research to back up what it claims. To sum it up, its a 3 phase periodization cycle with 7 total microphases within it.

ISSA recommends something very similar. I think it was a 3 phase periodization cycle as well (not 100% sure). The Z progression, as I've heard it called (because it begins with lower intensity, high repition sets, and ends with heavy weights and low reps before it repeats), seems to be a re-occurring theme in scientific weight training articles. This is good, because I'm trying to keep the overlap over contradicting science and incorporate it into the workouts I create (hence the title of Putting it All Together).

I was planning on addressing this later. It would appear to me that the "best" periodization program follows the Z progression, but it is just damn near impossible to be that strict/scientific with workouts IME, so instead I think it woud suffice to plan on steadily increasing workout intensity over X amount of weeks until you take a rest weak and begin the cycle again (as alot of canned workouts now advocate).

I garntee they will differ with ACE or ISSA on many acounts such as rest time rep speed recovery and things of that nature, but that doesn't mean they are wrong, it also doesn't mean ACE or ISSA is wrong either.

I think that this is just plain wrong. If both institutes are conducting valid scientific research, they would have to publish the exact same results. That's simply the definition of the scientific method:
"Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers opportunity to verify results as well as to establish statistical measures of reliability" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

If there is any room to disagree, it is between the incorporation of science into the workout. It just so happens that there is a TON of room in application of science in practice...

And [i] that [i] is the purpose of this thread...to unveil all of the facts possible, and with that knowledge, do my best with the input of other posters, to compose the tenets of the "optimal" workout program.

[Zane-eac]

Originally Posted by Retardo-pex

Every institute which is a legit certification agency will have thier own spin off of thier own training types.

I was unaware of other reputable institutes, however, I would like to learn more. Do you have any links to resources?

Take NASM for example, thier style of training known as optimum performance training also has years of research to back up what it claims. To sum it up, its a 3 phase periodization cycle with 7 total microphases within it.

ISSA recommends something very similar. I think it was a 3 phase periodization cycle as well (not 100% sure). The Z progression, as I've heard it called (because it begins with lower intensity, high repition sets, and ends with heavy weights and low reps before it repeats), seems to be a re-occurring theme in scientific weight training articles. This is good, because I'm trying to keep the overlap over contradicting science and incorporate it into the workouts I create (hence the title of Putting it All Together).

I was planning on addressing this later. It would appear to me that the "best" periodization program follows the Z progression, but it is just damn near impossible to be that strict/scientific with workouts IME, so instead I think it woud suffice to plan on steadily increasing workout intensity over X amount of weeks until you take a rest weak and begin the cycle again (as alot of canned workouts now advocate).

I garntee they will differ with ACE or ISSA on many acounts such as rest time rep speed recovery and things of that nature, but that doesn't mean they are wrong, it also doesn't mean ACE or ISSA is wrong either.

I think that this is just plain wrong. If both institutes are conducting valid scientific research, they would have to publish the exact same results. That's simply the definition of the scientific method:
"Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers opportunity to verify results as well as to establish statistical measures of reliability" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

If there is any room to disagree, it is between the incorporation of science into the workout. It just so happens that there is a TON of room in application of science in practice...

And that is the purpose of this thread...to unveil all of the facts possible, and with that knowledge, do my best with the input of other posters, to compose the tenets of the "optimal" workout program.

[alexk330]

Originally Posted by Zane-eac

I don't have the posts to back up the authoritative tone I'm going to post in, so what I'm writing will have to speak for itself. I think this might actually be best.

I've been reading bodybuilding.com and these forums for quite some time now, and have some problems with what I've read sometimes. I'm going to assert my position on each arguable point and would like to hear input from other posters.

If you've read as much science/theory as I have, you know that many things often conflict. Optimizing your training is a VERY hard thing to do. I feel that well over 90% of bodybuilding enthusiasts don't (myself included).

I've been fortunate enough to be friends with an ISSA personal trainer, and have read their manuals. One thing that stood out to me is that a workout MUST be catered to the individual. Any routine claiming to be a solve-all for everyone is therefore nonsense. There are also a few other things the ISSA claims that I'd like to address. I'm having a hard time making this fluent, but I'll do my best.

Optimal Rep Speed
The ISSA claims that you may get the most muscle stimulation by accelerating the positive motion of an excercise all the way to the top. This is because your muscles respond to force, and force=mass*acceleration. They also claim that "faster" reps will allow you to exert more force before lactic acid build-up inhibits your performance.

Now this sounds good and all, but conventional wisdom tells us this just isn't possible all the time. That would mean that you smash the dumbells together at the top of your peck flies. Furthermore, I wouldn't be able to keep the strict form needed to really feel that excercise.

So here is my revised solution:
Make an effort to accelerate through the positive motion of each excersise, but without sacraficing form or muscle contraction.

I think I'll stop for now with just this one topic and see what kind of feedback I get. I plan also to adress Routine/Split create, Rep Ranges, Excercise Selection, Routine Variety, and Intuitive vs. Scientific approaches to weight lifting, among other things.

I actually just read about something similar in an article in Natural Bodybuilding. The article was a "scientific" article including a study with a lot of data and research. I don't remember most of the specifics - read the 5 page article while in the bookstore (I like science so I found the technical info very interesting) and had never seen/heard of the magazine before - but here is the summary of it:

The study included 24 males who had no experience lifting before. They used leg extensions as the exercise. A portion of the people studied used 80% of their 1RM to complete 12 reps, and each rep consisted of exerting force for one second up, then one second down. Another portion of the people used 50% of their 1RM for 12 reps consisting of 3 seconds up, and 3 seconds down. The last group of people used 50% of their 1RM to complete 8 reps with each rep lasting one second up and one second down.

They recorded a lot of data, and measured each persons muscle mass progressively through the program with a variety of technologies. After the certain number of weeks, they measured the muscle mass gained from the leg extensions of each person.

The 1st group (80% 1RM, 1 sec up/down) gained 5.7% muscle mass (+/- 1.something%).
The 2nd group (50% 1RM, 3 sec up/down) gained 4.something% muscle mass (+/- 1.something%).
The 3rd group (50% 1RM, 1 sec up/down) gained no muscle mass.

What this all means is, using as much weight as possible with a greater acceleration (and thus greater force) is very beneficial. BUT using a lighter weight with a more controlled motion has its benefits also, and therefore cannot be completely banned --- constant tension is important. And lastly, using a light weight and "flinging" it up/down is not useful at all.

I do not know Natural Bodybuilding's reputation, but they had a few interesting articles. It is plagued with random non-roid ads (Cell Tech, Creatine, etc.), but was interesting to see pictures of people who claim to be natural.

[John Prophet]

Originally Posted by Zane-eac

think that this is just plain wrong. If both institutes are conducting valid scientific research, they would have to publish the exact same results. That's simply the definition of the scientific method:

I think I have identified the idealistic thinking of a 20 year old, lol....you are mistaking the way things SHOULD "ideally" work with the way things ACTUALLY work


IMO the complexity of the human body and also of athletic performance etc makes the whole subject incredibly intricate...different scientists, using different variables, tend to come up with different ideas and theories.

Think about it....there is no "agreed upon" "scientific" routine....let alone any scientific plan for what to do after that "ideal" routine stops working.

The closest situation I have seen that matches your quote above would be the sports scientists and coaches in the U.S.S.R....the Soviets....of course, this was before your time so you didnt grow up with the memory of the Soviets dominated each and every Olympics.

In any case they had literally thousands of world class athletes...they had coaches who were world class athletes and gold medal winners themselves...they had PHD programs for sports science.....they shared their discoveries throughout the country, when one scientist finished a study, the results were shared to the other scientists and coaches.

If you read any of the 'Russian Manuals' you see that they quote each others studies extensively


They would basically loosely plan out an athletes whole career and then break it down into 4 year plans (based around the Olympic cycles) and those break down into one year plans....naturally they got more precise as they broke down into shorter periods. Then in general each year was broken down into two "halves" with peaks based around the competition calender.

They planned out the total workload and waved it up and down during the year.....then the next year would be similar but with higher volume and higher average intensity (average weight used).

They charted EVERYTHING and were insane with statistics......they MADE the young kids play every sport for overall development...then using their statistics and models etc they could figure out which kid had the body type etc to fit which sport.


In the USA it is totally opposite.....we have egghead scientists who have never thrown a baseball or football in their lives.....they then do studies on untrained college kids....then you have a total breakdown/disconnect between the "scientists" and the "coaches"....the coaches are often these grizzled veterans from back in the days when they gave football players salt tablets and wouldnt let em drink water during practice, lol

think about it...even TODAY if you go to most schools and your coach hands you a "program"...it is a variation of the Matveyev periodization model. This was basically the first Russian model of periodization back in around the late 50's....by approxiamately 1964 they had discarded it for better models.....yet it is still our basic program over here.

See my point?

yet most of us here in America feel that "we are the best" at everything.....lol...if you look at the average quality of the questions on this forum you see that as a whole, our average level of knowledge about training is EXTREMELY low.


JP

[John Prophet]

an interesting article http://www.ruggedmag.com/index.php?t...icle&i=16&a=13

[Retardo-pex]

Once again, like john said, if you have 2 seperate research teams doing these studies to find thier own conclusive evidence rarely will the results be the same. Take eggs for example. In the 80's/90's there was that huge debate on whether eggs were healthy for you or not. One side had studies priving eggs will significantly raise choleserol while another side showed the great health benefits of eating eggs regularly.

The truth often lies somewhere in the middle. I didn't go into full detail about NASM's OPT model of periodization but from the way you describe the Z progression it doesn't really sound as similar as you thought.

As for rep speed, there has always been scientific debate over time under tension vs. explosive lifting for hypertrophy/strength and each side has research to back up their theories. Reading one scientific study will never be the be all end all conclusive research to anything regarding the human body. There are just to many things which can affect it in terms of the results you are looking for.

Even just in my college, there are huge strong guys who follow the high volume approach to lifting, there are also huge strong guys who follow the low rep high intensity approach. You can't bring them a study and tell them what they are doing is wrong if they actually took the time to find out the optimal way to train for them.

Most of the certification programs claim they can work for anyone, but I known for me personally, going into phase1 or 2 of NASM's program would be more detrimental to my gains then helpful, and I wouldn't try to put a world class athelete on those phases either. CPT manuals generally assume you are working with someone new to exercise or even a special population. With that in mind you have to understand that elite athletes in any sport or even ametures who are finding success in what they are doing can not simply have a cited research article tossed at them and be called wrong.

[Zane-eac]

Originally Posted by John Prophet

I think I have identified the idealistic thinking of a 20 year old, lol....you are mistaking the way things SHOULD "ideally" work with the way things ACTUALLY work

LOL. I think I have identified the cop out argument of a know-it-all old timer bent on making this a flame war. Plain and simple, if it can't be reproduced, a "scientific" study would never be reproduced in a reputable scientific journal. If your "reputable" scientific organization continues to print such bogus results, then they aren't really reputable and you should reconsider the source you're getting your information from.

IMO the complexity of the human body and also of athletic performance etc makes the whole subject incredibly intricate...different scientists, using different variables, tend to come up with different ideas and theories.

Your opion expresses a lack of understanding of scientific experiments, which attempts to control said variables. Type one musle fibers' responses to stimuli should be universal.

Think about it....there is no "agreed upon" "scientific" routine....let alone any scientific plan for what to do after that "ideal" routine stops working.

Different genetics would make it IMPOSSIBLE to agree upon a universal routine. It's really that simple. There is nothing that would keep science from "agreeing" upon the physiology of the human body, or the conclude up responses from different muscle fiber types. As I have already said, the room for disagreement comes from application of science to practice.

See my point?

No. All I see is "mumbo jumbo russian voodooo is different, i don't have facts to back it bla bla trust me I'm right." All I really see is a lack of understanding of science, paired with a word of mouth paraphrasing of Russian strength training. If you want MY facts to back it up, you can check my link:

www.amazon.com search for hypertrophy, that link will be about as informative as the one you have supplied.

Regards,
Zane

[John Prophet]

lol..you're a serious dolt...keep worshipping at the altar of science...see what it gets you


tell you what Ill do...since you think you are pretty smart....go find me ONE BB'ing pro that follows an ISSA routine


PM me or make a post when you find one...until then, go suck an egg

(btw, trying to make a few positive posts helps you get established on a forum, lol)

[Zane-eac]

Originally Posted by John Prophet

lol..you're a serious dolt...keep worshipping at the altar of science...see what it gets you


tell you what Ill do...since you think you are pretty smart....go find me ONE BB'ing pro that follows an ISSA routine


PM me or make a post when you find one...until then, go suck an egg

(btw, trying to make a few positive posts helps you get established on a forum, lol)

LOL. OMG, Science...I'm such a fool for "believing" in it.

Please do not clutter this thread any further...unless you have any scientific research to site.

And, as I've stated in the initial thread, I don't WANT previous post credit to get cronies such as you to say "Nice post." I wouldn't want people to take nonsensical shots at scientific fact, either, but I guess I'll have to deal with that.

Re-read my posts and your responses. You counter scientific fact with unfounded claims of Russian workouts. I claim science is universal, and it's application leaves room for differentiation. You don't seem to comprehend this notion. I will no longer clutter my own thread with your misunderstanding.

The dolt,
Zane

[John Prophet]

lol...The Russian scientific findings are still light years ahead of ours, lol....you have serious comprehension problems


btw...what do you squat? or do you even lift weights or what?


oh yeah...uhmm, have you posted any links to any scientiufic studies to edumacate us old cronies?? I guess not..seems you are all talk


while you are at it, post up your current routine and lifts Mr Science...put your money where your mouth is

I have been lifting and studying since before you were born....I am just trying to give you friendly advice....the "promise" of science has so far not proven much as far as bb'ing is concerned...ask around

as I said, if you dont believe me, go research it yourself.....find a pro or top amateur who follows an ISSA or some other "scientific" routine out of a scientific journal

[alexk330]

Originally Posted by John Prophet

btw...what do you squat? or do you even lift weights or what?

i'm curious too

[Zane-eac]

Originally Posted by John Prophet

lol...The Russian scientific findings are still light years ahead of ours, lol....you have serious comprehension problems


btw...what do you squat? or do you even lift weights or what?


oh yeah...uhmm, have you posted any links to any scientiufic studies to edumacate us old cronies?? I guess not..seems you are all talk


while you are at it, post up your current routine and lifts Mr Science...put your money where your mouth is

I have been lifting and studying since before you were born....I am just trying to give you friendly advice....the "promise" of science has so far not proven much as far as bb'ing is concerned...ask around

as I said, if you dont believe me, go research it yourself.....find a pro or top amateur who follows an ISSA or some other "scientific" routine out of a scientific journal

Yawwwnnn. Be gone troll.

[alexk330]

Originally Posted by Zane-eac

Yawwwnnn. Be gone troll.

you're the troll

[Fury22]

Originally Posted by alexk330

you're the troll

ditto

[Fury22]

Originally Posted by Zane-eac

LOL. OMG, Science...I'm such a fool for "believing" in it.

Please do not clutter this thread any further...unless you have any scientific research to site.

And, as I've stated in the initial thread, I don't WANT previous post credit to get cronies such as you to say "Nice post." I wouldn't want people to take nonsensical shots at scientific fact, either, but I guess I'll have to deal with that.

Re-read my posts and your responses. You counter scientific fact with unfounded claims of Russian workouts. I claim science is universal, and it's application leaves room for differentiation. You don't seem to comprehend this notion. I will no longer clutter my own thread with your misunderstanding.

The dolt,
Zane

Au Contraire. JP has an excellent understanding of the science. It is you that does not. Hate to break it to you, but at our age, it is nearly impossible to have that kind of understanding of the science of weight lifting and exercise. We simply have not been alive long enough, let alone studied and worked out long enough to know that much about exercise science.

Believe it or not, the Russians and most Eastern Block countries (but especially the Soviets) were way ahead of their time, and still are compared to Western methods, which is why many of the best strength coaches in the West go to Russia to study and learn. Many, if not nearly all, have applied principles that they learned from the Russians to their training. Louie Simmons, Glenn Pendlay, etc. The list goes on. Science is actually more on their side because they simply studied more and used real athletes for their studies all of the time, not just some of the time. Their extensive record keeping and open lines of communication led to a much better understanding and evolution of training.

You wanted a thread where people debate using real-world facts and legitimate science. You got it.

[Andrew.Cook]

Originally Posted by Zane-eac

Yawwwnnn. Be gone troll.

Negged for suggesting that John, a respected member of our community (of which you are just a fledgeling) is somehow trolling. Hey, I don't always agree with the guy, but I know enough to read and consider what he posts.

Quoting ISSA? wow.... just, wow....

[VikingMan]

Originally Posted by alexk330

you're the troll

Second ditto... negged.

[Fury22]

I thought the "Russian voodoo" term was humorous

[Andrew.Cook]

Originally Posted by Fury22

I thought the "Russian voodoo" term was humorous

Those Russians are well known for their Voodoo. Always bringing out the magic! Um... that and when you can start training a powerlifter as a child, that doesn't hurt your chances of being good either.

[John Prophet]

Lets say they could bottle up the "voodoo" and sell it

Russian voodoo would go for like $599 per 2 ounce bottle

sitting next to it on the shelf might be some dusty ISSA voodoo in a 16oz bottle for $9.99, lol

[Zane-eac]

Originally Posted by Fury22

I thought the "Russian voodoo" term was humorous

Well, that was the poing. Glad you enjoyed it.

[Fury22]

I was actually being sarcastic. I thought it was stupid, and the fact that you would call it that was stupid. But it was somewhat humorous, mainly because it was stupid. And stupid things are sometimes funny.

[Zane-eac]

Originally Posted by Fury22

You wanted a thread where people debate using real-world facts and legitimate science. You got it.

I didn't . There has been no science discussion. I'm cool with that and would benefit from it. If you've got a boner for the Russian workout science, well then feel free to compare its research with that presented from the ISSA. If you don't like the ISSA, feel free to debate their claims with another research instititue. However, just saying that the Russian system is better and they do it differently, so you can't put definite stake in anything, accomplishes nothing. It takes a theory to kill a theory.

You can rave all you want about Russian bodybuilding, but please supply some of the information behind it. No one has addressed the OP theory content, which is a bit disappointing. Yes it's easier to flame and argue about intangibles because you don't need proof, but really, where does that get us?

As for asking how much I squat, that's really just immature and has nothing to do with theory discussion. Thought I was supposed to be the 20 year old?

Please stop trolling, everyone. If you don't like the post (and it's hard to like a flame ware), don't bump it. But coming in to troll just clutters the thread. If the OP sucked, you're making it suck alot worse.