Had to Tweak Ripptoes, What do you think?

[Farley1324]

I said any exercise is replaceable. Period.

What you said was:

My view is any exercise is a replaceable tool and doing so won't lose effectiveness, as long as your goal doesn't involve being tested on the specific movement. Bodybuilders use exercises as a tool. Is there a study that proves squats are superior to leg press for size when (I'll quote you), 'heavy full' leg presses were performed?

You stated any exercise is replaceable, without losing effectiveness.

This indicates that you believe no exercise is more effective than another.

[SumDumGoi]

It's your study, your claim, and your burdon of proof.

If it's there, post it up.

If it is not there but you like to act as though it is, continue with the above.

I have provided you evidence, what have you provided? The original study I was referring to would only help to build the case for my argument. As soon as you provide any credible evidence I will respond. Go ahead, find me A SINGLE shred of evidence which supports your case. Given your level of stupidity this argument is pointless until you back up your arguments.

[Farley1324]

I have provided you evidence, what have you provided?

Jim Wendler + Bill Starr + Mark Rippetoe + Glenn Pendlay > some random internet poster that doesn't even lift

Sorry.

Sorry.

[SumDumGoi]

Sorry.

Yes, powerlifters have a requirement to squat because they must perform the squat as part of their sport. That doesn't really refute the argument though now does it?

[Farley1324]

Yes, powerlifters have a requirement to squat because they must perform the squat as part of their sport. That doesn't really refute the argument though now does it?

Who said anything about that?

I suggest looking up who each of those four individuals are since you are apparently unaware.

[Kirra]

What kind of results did you get on SS. What were your starting lift weights and where did you end? I just ask because I once began a thread on SS Reviews.

I just bumped that thread.

[Kirra]

My advice to you would be to stop complicating things. There is no such thing as "the best" exercise. There are only different exercises. What matters most is the effort you put into getting stronger with whatever exercise you choose. It is not the choice of exercise that will determine how strong you get. You could replace the squat with a leg press (blasphemy I know) and still get equal results.

Lulz. Equal results in what? Strength or mass?

There is no such thing as "the best" exercise.

Really? So you're saying that back extensions and leg curls are as valuable as deadlifts?

[Orlando1234977]

You stated any exercise is replaceable, without losing effectiveness.

This indicates that you believe no exercise is more effective than another.

Wrong. If a stock broker told you any security is replaceable, would that indicate no security is more effective than another? You can't be serious. Anyway,

For simplicity sake, to show the parameters of how it's possible to have an exercise replaceable, while still being more effectiveness than any random exercise, consider the following.

Let pool A consist of exercises (a, b, c)

Let pool B consist of exercises (d, e, f)

Let pool C consist of exercises (g, h, i)

Any exercise is replaceable within it's pool of exercises.

If a squat and leg press are both in group A, and leg extension is in group C, it's not a replaceable movement for the squat or leg press and may be less effective since it's in a different pool of exercises.

[SumDumGoi]

Wrong. If a stock broker told you any security is replaceable, would that indicate no security is more effective than another? You can't be serious. Anyway,

For simplicity sake, to show the parameters of how it's possible to have an exercise replaceable, while still being more effectiveness than any random exercise, consider the following.

Let pool A consist of exercises (a, b, c)

Let pool B consist of exercises (d, e, f)

Let pool C consist of exercises (g, h, i)

Any exercise is replaceable within it's pool of exercises.

If a squat and leg press are both in group A, and leg extension is in group C, it's not a replaceable movement for the squat or leg press and may be less effective since it's in a different pool of exercises.

Orlando,

Don't bother. Once they have to start arguing within the extremes there really is no point in continuing.

[Farley1324]

Wrong. If a stock broker told you any security is replaceable without losing effectiveness, would that indicate no security is more effective than another? You can't be serious.

Yes. That is what would be indicated.

Perhaps you do not realize this, but the phrase "without losing effectiveness" has meaning. Consider that next time you use it.

Anyway,

For simplicity sake, to show the parameters of how it's possible to have an exercise replaceable, while still being more effectiveness than any random exercise, consider the following.

Let pool A consist of exercises (a, b, c)

Let pool B consist of exercises (d, e, f)

Let pool C consist of exercises (g, h, i)

Any exercise is replaceable within it's pool of exercises.

If a squat and leg press are both in group A, and leg extension is in group C, it's not a replaceable movement for the squat or leg press and may be less effective since it's in a different pool of exercises.

Squats: Group A
Leg Press: Group B
Leg Extension: Group C

Simple.

[Farley1324]

SDG, BTW, I'm still waiting for the quantitative measurement of LBM gain shown by the ultrasound.

So...how much LBM gain (per each group) was measured by the ultrasound?

It would be kinda cool if you could actually produce a study that in any way supports your position. Since, you know, you keep trying to convince us said studies exist.

[Rion121]

Instead of squat and leg press can we argue the difference between:
Hack squat vs squat
power clean vs Pendlay row

I'm only asking because these are the changes I've made in my routine. I just wanted to know how bad these changes would effect my results towards the end if any.

(As an after thought I should have named this thread something else.....)

[Orlando1234977]

Yes. That is what would be indicated.

Perhaps you do not realize this, but the phrase "without losing effectiveness" has meaning. Consider that next time you use it.

Squats: Group A
Leg Press: Group B
Leg Extension: Group C

Simple.

Without losing effectiveness is exactly what is said, and exactly what I meant.

But it has to be replaced within its category.

Group A: Squats. Leg Presses. Hack Squats (unless you can produce a study that squats are superior to support your claim when leg presses were done 'heavy and full' blah blah blah)
Group C: Leg extensions.

(Are you trolling?)

Instead of squat and leg press can we argue the difference between:
Hack squat vs squat
power clean vs Pendlay row

I'm only asking because these are the changes I've made in my routine. I just wanted to know how bad these changes would effect my results towards the end if any.

(As an after thought I should have named this thread something else.....)

You're fine dude.

[Farley1324]

Without losing effectiveness is exactly what is said, and exactly what I meant.

But it has to be replaced within its category.

Group A: Squats. Leg Presses. Hack Squats (unless you can produce a study that squats are superior to support your claim when leg presses were done 'heavy and full' blah blah blah)
Group C: Leg extensions.

(Are you trolling?)

I'm not the one high on those silly studies

[SumDumGoi]

SDG, BTW, I'm still waiting for the quantitative measurement of LBM gain shown by the ultrasound.

So...how much LBM gain (per each group) was measured by the ultrasound?

It would be kinda cool if you could actually produce a study that in any way supports your position. Since, you know, you keep trying to convince us said studies exist.

You are capable of reading the study as much as I am. However, I believe you are trying to play another round of "gotcha; the retarded edition" here.

The increases in muscle mass observed using ultrasound were not reported as a weight. They measured the "thickness" of the muscle both before and after the training and reported the percentage of increase. This measurement was not intended as a measurement of weight.

Now before you go off spouting more of your retard around this thread let me create an analogous situation. If I were to make myself a turkey sandwich I could easily measure the thickness of the sandwich. Then if I were to add a ew more slices of turkey to it I could measure the thickness again and clearly see that it has increased in size. Although I wouldn't know the exact weight of the turkey that was added to the sandwich I would still have a clear measurement of an increase in size/thickness and could report the increase as a percentage of the original sandwich.

If you would like to know if there was an increase in body weight you could easily look at the weights of the individuals both before and after the training. You could also notice that there was an increase in both muscular strength and the thickness of the muscle. Given this data do you think it is feasible that an increase in LBM had in fact occurred? If not, precisely define the mechanism that could have resulted in an increase in both muscular thickness and strength that would not produce an increase in LBM.

Your contention was that the authors must not have known what they were doing because they were unable to distinguish an increase in LBM from a measurement (Bod Pod) which only measures body density. Why is it that you don't beleive an increase in LBM did in fact occur?

[Farley1324]

SDG: Your contention was that this study supported your position that the leg press is at least as effective as the squat.

After posting multiple walls of text you have yet to show any evidence that this is in fact shown by the study.

Got anything else?

[PowderMonkey]

Instead of squat and leg press can we argue the difference between:
Hack squat vs squat
power clean vs Pendlay row

I'm only asking because these are the changes I've made in my routine. I just wanted to know how bad these changes would effect my results towards the end if any.

(As an after thought I should have named this thread something else.....)

At this point, I would suggest you make a new thread

SDG Has been backed into corner and is now fighting for his pride. He won't listen to reason for a good long while.

[SumDumGoi]

SDG: Your contention was that this study supported your position that the leg press is at least as effective as the squat.

After posting multiple walls of text you have yet to show any evidence that this is in fact shown by the study.

Got anything else?

"When stupidity is a sufficient explanation, there is no need to have recourse to any other”

-Mitchell Ulmann

[PeterGibbons316]

I am insulting you because you are too dumb to comprehend what has been told you to on repeated occasions. Let's run some math to show you actually how stupid you are.

We are going to start out with a reference man who weighs 175 lbs. Our reference man is also going to be 15% body fat, which would give him ~149 lbs of LBM. We will say that after 8 weeks of resistance training he will gain 1 lb of LBM per week or 8 lbs (this would be on the high end of what is actually possible, but I digress.).

After 8 weeks our reference man would have a LBM of 157 lbs and would now weigh 183 lbs. His new body fat% would be 14.2%. In other words his body fat percentage would not even have decreased by a single percentage point.

Every measurement will always come with it a small percentage of error. The measurement error for Bod Pod is ~ 1-2%. In other words, if I were to run 2 separate Bod Pod measurements on you on the same day they would not be exactly the same and would ost likley be ~ 1-2% from each other. Now given the fact that even if 8 lbs of muscle mass was gained following the training program the percentage of body fat would not have changed by more than a single percent it is no wonder why changes in whole body LBM were not observed!

However, the changes in muscle thickness were observed using ultrasound along with an increase in total body weight. These measurements would in fact indicate that increases in muscle mass were in fact observed following the 8 weeks of training.

Now my question for you is do you yet understand exactly how ****ing stupid you actually are or do you plan to continue to chase retard down the rabbit hole?

ITT: SumDumGoi doesn't understand the difference between accuracy and precision, and makes poor conclusions based on his misunderstanding.

1-2% error in accuracy means that when you measure a sample it is likely to be 1-2% off of its true value. It does NOT mean that if you were to remeasure that same sample it could be up to 1-2% off of the first measurement. The device is precise enough to detect any noticeable changes in the same sample (i.e. person).

Also, exactly how accurate is that ultrasound that you keep mentioning???

[N@tural1]

Leg press versus squats.

Doesn't matter, provided one is progressive either will add both strength and mass.

Don't need a study to tell me that.

[SumDumGoi]

ITT: SumDumGoi doesn't understand the difference between accuracy and precision, and makes poor conclusions based on his misunderstanding.

1-2% error in accuracy means that when you measure a sample it is likely to be 1-2% off of its true value. It does NOT mean that if you were to remeasure that same sample it could be up to 1-2% off of the first measurement. The device is precise enough to detect any noticeable changes in the same sample (i.e. person).

Also, exactly how accurate is that ultrasound that you keep mentioning???

Given the number presented, an 8 lb increase in muscle mass would not have produced a single percent change in body composition. The only thing the bod pod measures is body density. If you can gain 8 lbs of muscle and have a change of < 1% in body composition (this is basic math) the device would not be "precise" enough to measure these differences.

The premise of nutjob's argument was that the researchers were not competent enough to create an increase in muscle mass. This is not true as there was a measured increase in thickness of both the quadriceps and the elbow flexors. I also believe that overall bodyweight increased as well. Based on this, do you feel that the premise of Farley's argument is correct or incorrect that there was no increase in muscle mass?

[SumDumGoi]

Leg press versus squats.

Doesn't matter, provided one is progressive either will add both strength and mass.

Don't need a study to tell me that.

Natty and myself get along as well as oil and water. Even we are in agreement. Here is a better question for others to answer. If you feel that there is a single routine or a single exercise which produces superior results, why is it that there are so many different routines and exercises that are used by a variety of bodybuilders and athletes? If the squat truly is superior, why is it that there are many bodybuilders who don't use it in their routines at all? Isn't it feasible that there are a variety of techniques that can be used to achieve the same result? Why does every routine need to be Starting Strength?

[Farley1324]

Still waiting for one of your studies to show up...

[chrissypoo13]

This thread is gold!

[PeterGibbons316]

Given the number presented, an 8 lb increase in muscle mass would not have produced a single percent change in body composition. The only thing the bod pod measures is body density. If you can gain 8 lbs of muscle and have a change of < 1% in body composition (this is basic math) the device would not be "precise" enough to measure these differences.

The premise of nutjob's argument was that the researchers were not competent enough to create an increase in muscle mass. This is not true as there was a measured increase in thickness of both the quadriceps and the elbow flexors. I also believe that overall bodyweight increased as well. Based on this, do you feel that the premise of Farley's argument is correct or incorrect that there was no increase in muscle mass?

From the study that you posted.....

Conclusions
Results of this study show that significant increases in strength, and biceps and quadriceps muscle thickness can be achieved by training with only free weights or only machines. Males training with free weights may also see an added benefit of increased muscle mass over an extended period of time due to acute increases in testosterone. Males, regardless of training mode, may also benefit from a positive exercise induced increase in the testosterone to cortisol ratio resulting in a more “anabolic
environment”.

[Farley1324]

From the study that you posted.....

lolawsome

[PeterGibbons316]

Also from your study.....

Strength Measurements
Strength was assessed by performing a one repetition maximum (1RM) on a free weight bench press, 6-10RM free weight squat, 1RM Smith machine bench press and a 6-10RM Smith machine squat.

Please keep using this joke of a study as proof that the leg press is somehow better at building muscle than the squat is though.

[SumDumGoi]

Also from your study.....


Please keep using this joke of a study as proof that the leg press is somehow better at building muscle than the squat is though.

Peter,

To address your first point notice, the word "may". This is not an absolute as it is only speculation. The authors of the study were much like you believing that free weights would have an added benefit over machines. Please keep in mind that this speculation on the part of the authors was not based off of anything that was actually observed.

To address your second post where you mentioned the "smith machine", you have just jumped onto the retarded wagon. I find it strange that you jumped over the part where it said that strength was also assessed using FREE WEIGHTS. They had more than one measurement of muscular strength. By focusing only on the smith machine aspect and neglected the free weight component you have showed your bias.

Tearing apart any single study is not a hard thing to do. No single study is perfect. However, what I would like you to do is go back and find a single study that says free weights produce superior benefits over machines. Also, please address the questions I asked in my previous post.

Also, based on the evidence from the study, do you or do you not believe that any increases in muscle mass had in fact happened?

[Farley1324]

However, what I would like you to do is go back and find a single study that says free weights produce superior benefits over machines.

We're still waiting for you to produce the studies that show the opposite. Since, you know, you claimed they exist.

[SumDumGoi]

We're still waiting for you to produce the studies that show the opposite. Since, you know, you claimed they exist.

I have produced studies, you haven't produced anything. The problem is that you are only interested in you being correct. Unfortunately you don't have anything that backs up your beliefs outside of a few random internet morons.

Honestly I am done with this thread until one of you produces some sort of evidence, as even your criticisms of the posted studies don't even make sense.