Many fitness topics come up over and over and the various merits are weighed and dissected, argued over, studies posted, etc, etc.

When you examine it closely, there are FEW things that most fitness people would agree on. Some of those might be "Eating nothing but Snickers bars & Twix all day in front of a PC with no exercise is unhealthy". I can't think of another one that you wouldn't find SOMEONE arguing.

This post is dedicated to the common ones!

1. Which form of cardio is "Superior"? High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) or standard Longer Term Lower Intensity (Normal, LISS, other names).

"Superior" is the key word here as they both seem to have benefits and disadvantages (This is a common theme).
One CLEAR advantage to HIIT is that it takes less time. Everything else is up for debate. (Which one burns more fat, preserves more muscle, builds stronger cardiovascular fitness, builds endurance, etc).

2. What type of cardio is "Superior"? Cardio first thing in morning on empty stomach vs. pre-workout nutrition.

Both have benefits and disadvantages. "Eat first" people say you preserve more muscle. "Don't bother" people say your body HAS to burn fat because there is no other fuel to burn. Who knows?

3. Ketogenic (Atkins type) vs. Healthy Carbs vs. 40/40/20 vs. x/y/z vs etc, etc, etc -- Which one is "Superior"?

Like the others, you have to say Superior at WHAT. They all have advantages and disadvantages. I think MOST people would agree that diet is the most important portion of any exercise plan. I think most would also agree then, that the diet you are able to stick to - and that won't kill or harm you - is "Best".

Many believe the Ketogenic diets are unsustainable in the longterm, and being in a ketogenic state is unhealthy. Many don't. I think most would agree that the main lesson from Ketogenic diets (reduce excess REFINED carbohydrates) is a good lesson. To my knowledge, no one thinks snickers, soda, beer, etc are a healthy part of any fitness diet.

Macronutrient ratios depend greatly on what goal the person is aiming for, getting and retaining bigger muscles? Dropping fat while keeping muscle? Dropping fat and not caring about muscle? Just losing "weight"? -- Who knows.

"Carbs are bad" vs "The right kind of carbs are healthy" or "Milk/Dairy is bad vs. nah-uh!" debates also fall into this category.

4. What is the "best" exercise regimen?
Again, "Best" depends entirely on your goals, what is healthy, and what you can stick to.

MaxOT vs. Body for life pyramiding, Jogging vs. Treadmill, "Heavy" versus "High Rep", 3 times a week vs. Everyday, etc, etc all falls in here. -- Who knows?!?

There are a lot more, but the point is there is NO "best" answer that fits everybody. There is NO consensus. Everything above has been effective for SOMEBODY. To find out if something is effective for YOU you should do the following:

1) Ask yourself if you can stick to whatever the plan is, for the rest of your life.
2) Decide if the sacrifices of a particular course are worth the potential gains.
3) TRY IT! Keep logs/measurements of important things. Photos, journals of how you feel, emotions, how well you stuck with it, etc, etc.
4) Stick with your plan long enough to get a good feel for it. If something isn't working after 4 weeks, re-evaluate and modify your current plan, or throw it out and adopt a different philosophy.

Eventually, you'll find something that WORKS for you, is SUSTAINABLE, and is WORTH IT to you. Then, you have hit on the magic formula that guarantees you will meet your goals!

:gl:

P.S. If anyone has any of the other "Great Debates" they want to add, please do! If you are less lazy then me and want to post actual links to arguments for both sides of said debates, go head. But don't just post arguments for the one you want to win :)

-Allen

I guess my question would be this. And, forgive me for this approach - I understand the ideas behind debate, etc. However, in my opinion, spending time analyzing, dissecting, and worrying about optimal, et al is more of "activity" when what people are really looking for is "productivity" - i.e. results.

So, in that vein, who really cares what is superior? If I can effectively help my clients lose fat using both HIIT and LISS, so it becomes a question of what they can be consistent with an enjoy, does it make sense to worry about if one is superior? What is the superiority going to gain ... so maybe one client loses 1/4 pound more per week than another, is it really a race or a lifestyle change to live healthy?

That's why, for example, with the dairy debate, I don't really consider it a debate. I have people willing to take the dairy test eliminate it for a month. If they have great results, who cares what the debaters say, or the studies? They got great results, we found something that works, so they stick with it. If they find that nothing really changes, no real impact, or that they in fact feel worse or aren't losing as well when cutting out dairy, again - no debate - they get back on dairy. It's fine. It works for them.

Here's the real kicker. I don't really see debate at all with best exercise regimen among fitness trainers or experts. Why? Because most understand the basic principles of designing an effective workout - overload, overcompensation, GAS principle, SAID principle, law of individual differences, etc ... and realize that no program can be superior because there are various cycles during training that people focus on higher reps (endurance), lower reps (neurological/strength), moderate reps (hypertrophy) etc. The debate isn't really in the fitness circles, it is in the end-user/consumer circles. Why? Because most people don't want to learn how to design effective programs, they want one spoon fed. So many systems are developed (Max-OT, SAIS, etc) that oversimplify the training to give people what they want - pre-fab workouts. Nothing wrong with that, because working out is better than not working out ...

But then it all comes to this.

The question, "What is superior" is a very, very, very broad generalization and oversimplification. I think the reason why much debate exists is because people are asking the wrong question.

It's like saying, "What's the BEST tool?" Well, in Georgia, when I had a yard 1 foot thick with leaves, it was the rake. In South Dakota, with a foot of snow, it's my snow shovel and a better tool would be a snow blower.

So what is the right question? It's "What is superior for ME, right NOW?" and then it becomes easier to ask. See, then it doesn't matter if research shows that you burn more fat on an empty stomach. Why? Because if you get dizzy and nauseous and simply can't train well on an empty stomach, it's obviously not best for YOU. Etc etc.

Interesting topic, but again, I just don't see the point in expending energy on it when it can go in circles - instead of the activity of analyzing each program, why not focus on the productivity of what works for YOU?

Jeremy

Many fitness topics come up over and over and the various merits are weighed and dissected, argued over, studies posted, etc, etc.

When you examine it closely, there are FEW things that most fitness people would agree on. Some of those might be "Eating nothing but Snickers bars & Twix all day in front of a PC with no exercise is unhealthy". I can't think of another one that you wouldn't find SOMEONE arguing.

This post is dedicated to the common ones!

1. Which form of cardio is "Superior"? High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) or standard Longer Term Lower Intensity (Normal, LISS, other names).

"Superior" is the key word here as they both seem to have benefits and disadvantages (This is a common theme).
One CLEAR advantage to HIIT is that it takes less time. Everything else is up for debate. (Which one burns more fat, preserves more muscle, builds stronger cardiovascular fitness, builds endurance, etc).

2. What type of cardio is "Superior"? Cardio first thing in morning on empty stomach vs. pre-workout nutrition.

Both have benefits and disadvantages. "Eat first" people say you preserve more muscle. "Don't bother" people say your body HAS to burn fat because there is no other fuel to burn. Who knows?

3. Ketogenic (Atkins type) vs. Healthy Carbs vs. 40/40/20 vs. x/y/z vs etc, etc, etc -- Which one is "Superior"?

Like the others, you have to say Superior at WHAT. They all have advantages and disadvantages. I think MOST people would agree that diet is the most important portion of any exercise plan. I think most would also agree then, that the diet you are able to stick to - and that won't kill or harm you - is "Best".

Many believe the Ketogenic diets are unsustainable in the longterm, and being in a ketogenic state is unhealthy. Many don't. I think most would agree that the main lesson from Ketogenic diets (reduce excess REFINED carbohydrates) is a good lesson. To my knowledge, no one thinks snickers, soda, beer, etc are a healthy part of any fitness diet.

Macronutrient ratios depend greatly on what goal the person is aiming for, getting and retaining bigger muscles? Dropping fat while keeping muscle? Dropping fat and not caring about muscle? Just losing "weight"? -- Who knows.

"Carbs are bad" vs "The right kind of carbs are healthy" or "Milk/Dairy is bad vs. nah-uh!" debates also fall into this category.

4. What is the "best" exercise regimen?
Again, "Best" depends entirely on your goals, what is healthy, and what you can stick to.

MaxOT vs. Body for life pyramiding, Jogging vs. Treadmill, "Heavy" versus "High Rep", 3 times a week vs. Everyday, etc, etc all falls in here. -- Who knows?!?

There are a lot more, but the point is there is NO "best" answer that fits everybody. There is NO consensus. Everything above has been effective for SOMEBODY. To find out if something is effective for YOU you should do the following:

1) Ask yourself if you can stick to whatever the plan is, for the rest of your life.
2) Decide if the sacrifices of a particular course are worth the potential gains.
3) TRY IT! Keep logs/measurements of important things. Photos, journals of how you feel, emotions, how well you stuck with it, etc, etc.
4) Stick with your plan long enough to get a good feel for it. If something isn't working after 4 weeks, re-evaluate and modify your current plan, or throw it out and adopt a different philosophy.

Eventually, you'll find something that WORKS for you, is SUSTAINABLE, and is WORTH IT to you. Then, you have hit on the magic formula that guarantees you will meet your goals!

:gl:

P.S. If anyone has any of the other "Great Debates" they want to add, please do! If you are less lazy then me and want to post actual links to arguments for both sides of said debates, go head. But don't just post arguments for the one you want to win :)

-Allen

I agree there is no point in debating these topics. The most valuable thing I have got from this forum are ideas. Wihtout a PT I have to figure out what is going to work form me and to do that I need options, ideas and at least some sensible starting direction if I decide to go with one way rather than the other.

Thanks Jeremy for saving me 10-15 minutes trying to type up something remarkably similar to what you said :)

The only thing I would add is this: with most types of physical workout motivation is a really important thing. What motivates you is mostly personal, emotional and non-logical. Because of this, a lot of "what works for you" has nothing to do with strict science but has to do with what makes you happy. Sticking with the milk example, if drinking a large glass of cold milk in the morning makes you happy and eager to work out, good for you, drink it and train, regardless of what they tell you about lactose/calcium/etc in the "studies".

I think the point of debating these topics is to bring to surface information that people may not know of.

To me it's not so important that a consensus is reached; but that I can read the pros and cons of each thing and then decide/try for myself to see the results.

If the "milk" debate never existed on the JSF forums I probably would have never given it thought in reference to my diet.

Here is my stance.

I simply post and give insight to what I know personally works w/myself and the 1000's that I've assisted, to offer a way in which to do things. (On any given topic) When I offer advice, it's from years of experience and education, not from a magazine, a google search, not a study, etc.

What people do w/that advice I provide is up to them, it doesn't really concern me as I know what I need to do to succeed personally, and I know that what I do in assisting others is extremely successful. So, it's information that can be adopted or ignored, it's irrelevant to what I do both with myself and the plethora of people that I assist/educate/counsel/etc., that pay me for my guidance and success.

My contributions are merely options that are presented, and I am not here to defend what I offer, because if it ever gets to that point, I'll refrain from offering anything at all. Being here helping is what I like to do, but if it becomes a debate/challenge each time a post is made, then you can best believe my contributions here will disappear like the money used for taxes in your paycheck.

:tu:

~SC~

When I offer advice, it's from years of experience and education, not from a magazine, a google search, not a study, etc.



I believe that that is what most people here are looking for.

Who cares if you're using the "best" plan if you are victorious? Who cares if you're using the "best" plan if you aren't victorious?

I get worked up about these debates too much. I should spend less time arguing and more time posting pictures and tracking my progress. That's the philosophy on which this site was founded - forget the babble, get the results, be concrete, get personal, get humble, get to the point. Do you what you yourself need to do to get the results you want, and be exacting about it. I think that's John's example right there.

I know I've been in sports games where, afterwards, the winning team said, "You guys were the better team," and been right. And vise versa.

But superiority is a poor substitute for victory.

I think superiority is a vain pursuit - there will always be somebody better than you at something. Even if you yourself are the best in the world at something, you won't be forever -

- but a victory, a hard-earned victory is something nobody can take away from you.

It's why, long after all the records are gone, Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig will still have a place in my heart.

And why, once I'm in peak shape, it won't matter so much whether I got there quickly or slowly, running, jogging, or swimming, drinking milk or no. The most important thing is to continue to make progress and to eventually achieve that victory.

I guess my question would be this. And, forgive me for this approach - I understand the ideas behind debate, etc. However, in my opinion, spending time analyzing, dissecting, and worrying about optimal, et al is more of "activity" when what people are really looking for is "productivity" - i.e. results.

So, in that vein, who really cares what is superior? If I can effectively help my clients lose fat using both HIIT and LISS, so it becomes a question of what they can be consistent with an enjoy, does it make sense to worry about if one is superior? What is the superiority going to gain ... so maybe one client loses 1/4 pound more per week than another, is it really a race or a lifestyle change to live healthy?

That's why, for example, with the dairy debate, I don't really consider it a debate. I have people willing to take the dairy test eliminate it for a month. If they have great results, who cares what the debaters say, or the studies? They got great results, we found something that works, so they stick with it. If they find that nothing really changes, no real impact, or that they in fact feel worse or aren't losing as well when cutting out dairy, again - no debate - they get back on dairy. It's fine. It works for them.

Here's the real kicker. I don't really see debate at all with best exercise regimen among fitness trainers or experts. Why? Because most understand the basic principles of designing an effective workout - overload, overcompensation, GAS principle, SAID principle, law of individual differences, etc ... and realize that no program can be superior because there are various cycles during training that people focus on higher reps (endurance), lower reps (neurological/strength), moderate reps (hypertrophy) etc. The debate isn't really in the fitness circles, it is in the end-user/consumer circles. Why? Because most people don't want to learn how to design effective programs, they want one spoon fed. So many systems are developed (Max-OT, SAIS, etc) that oversimplify the training to give people what they want - pre-fab workouts. Nothing wrong with that, because working out is better than not working out ...

But then it all comes to this.

The question, "What is superior" is a very, very, very broad generalization and oversimplification. I think the reason why much debate exists is because people are asking the wrong question.

It's like saying, "What's the BEST tool?" Well, in Georgia, when I had a yard 1 foot thick with leaves, it was the rake. In South Dakota, with a foot of snow, it's my snow shovel and a better tool would be a snow blower.

So what is the right question? It's "What is superior for ME, right NOW?" and then it becomes easier to ask. See, then it doesn't matter if research shows that you burn more fat on an empty stomach. Why? Because if you get dizzy and nauseous and simply can't train well on an empty stomach, it's obviously not best for YOU. Etc etc.

Interesting topic, but again, I just don't see the point in expending energy on it when it can go in circles - instead of the activity of analyzing each program, why not focus on the productivity of what works for YOU?

Jeremy

Jeremy, I (obviously!) couldn't have said it better myself! What YOU said was the point I was trying to convey with my post. Not that we should endlessly debate these things, but that we should find what works for US and stick to it. :) I guess I obscured my point (I do that a lot) with uneccesary and mispelled words.

-Allen

Nah, you made your point very clearly! I realized as I was responding that it looked like almost a response/debate when in fact I was simply elaborating in my own words on what you shared!

:)

I love this community. Great people, great ideas, great comments.

Jeremy

Jeremy, I (obviously!) couldn't have said it better myself! What YOU said was the point I was trying to convey with my post. Not that we should endlessly debate these things, but that we should find what works for US and stick to it. :) I guess I obscured my point (I do that a lot) with uneccesary and mispelled words.

-Allen

Here is my stance.

I simply post and give insight to what I know personally works w/myself and the 1000's that I've assisted, to offer a way in which to do things. (On any given topic) When I offer advice, it's from years of experience and education, not from a magazine, a google search, not a study, etc.

What people do w/that advice I provide is up to them, it doesn't really concern me as I know what I need to do to succeed personally, and I know that what I do in assisting others is extremely successful. So, it's information that can be adopted or ignored, it's irrelevant to what I do both with myself and the plethora of people that I assist/educate/counsel/etc., that pay me for my guidance and success.

My contributions are merely options that are presented, and I am not here to defend what I offer, because if it ever gets to that point, I'll refrain from offering anything at all. Being here helping is what I like to do, but if it becomes a debate/challenge each time a post is made, then you can best believe my contributions here will disappear like the money used for taxes in your paycheck.

:tu:

~SC~

Wow! Swole has also made the OTHER point I was having difficulty communicating (you guys are great!)

The other point was that Swole has found a combination of parameters that WILL provide results. It doesn't matter if one or more pieces are optimal because the whole program WORKS. Swole's package is just that: a package. He knows it all works AS a package.

So he's: Found something that works not just for him but for others.

I'm going to quit because I'm taking something he said simply and eloquently and making it more complicated.

Thanks!
-Allen

Jeremy: What if the client enjoys HIIT and LISS equally, and could do both for the rest of his or her life? That is the heart of the debate. When other factors are equal, which one maximizes your results?

Jeremy: What if the client enjoys HIIT and LISS equally, and could do both for the rest of his or her life? That is the heart of the debate. When other factors are equal, which one maximizes your results?

I don't think you got the point of Jeremy's post - or maybe you did. :lol:

this is an interesting post for me as a relative newbie to fitness and jsf something ive been thinking a lot about recently...

recently i've been trying to optimise my regime for cutting and so using these boards for research i have however been feeling 'swamped' by the 'great debates' that akm3 indentifies and so has left me feeling a bit lost and perhaps demotivated as a result of the overwhelming information...they are all of course valid i realise and interesting but perhaps i as a person am not ready for that level of detail yet.....

what ive been doing in the past (regular cardiovascular, occasional weights with no real program,more sensible eating - reducing junk foods though still cheating and drinking alcohol) - although not optimal they have in the past got results (1.5 stone weight loss etc) - so far - for me. i understand using a proper program would get better results - but from my perspective im changing the (bad) habits of a lifetime slowly but it seems to be working.......

this has helped to clarify in my mind after an xmas overindulgence - stop reading so many posts and worrying out optimal strategies and get back on with my own 'program' for a while (albeit subopitmal) !

You are not alone.

In fact, this is the #1 reason why people don't succeed in many areas, not just health and fitness - but business or otherwise.

It is analysis paralysis.

I'm sure a few of the engineering/analytical types are going to come rushing out of the woodwork with logical arguments against this, which is fine, but let's face it. I was in the IT industry for 10 years and was very analytical. So I did just what I see a lot of people trying to do ... research, research, research, analyze, create a flowchart, decide what is optimal, etc.

And that was "activity" isntead of "productivity."

In other words, I'll see people spend 3 weeks debating what the optimal cardio is. When, in fact, they could have started 3 weeks earlier with ANY cardio, even sub-optimal, and had more progress than simply sitting on it and debating.

I'm not saying this is YOU ... don't get me wrong. I'm also not saying we shouldn't learn, look to see what is under the rock, understand reasons, etc.

But, here it is ... I've been coaching for some time now, and all of my successful clients - the ones who had tremendous transformations and stick with it - have something in common. It's not their training routine or their cardio or even their nutrition program. It's heart. They have a lot of heart. A passion.

My friend and mentor Mike Litman says it best ... that you don't get it perfect, you get it going. For example, with my e-Book, I could have had it pass under 500 revisions of editors before releasing it, or waited for it to be perfect, and never launched. Instead, I decided to get it going. Sure, it launched with spelling, grammer, etc, and still has some of those issues, but that's fine because I'm not trying to create a literary masterpiece or challenge a grammar professor, I'm trying to get inspiration and knowledge into the hands of people who seek it. So I got it GOING, because I can always come back and fix it up and make it better but I could never go back and find the people I would have missed out on reaching if I had waited.

With your physique, its the same thing. If you spend too much time on debates like optimal cardio or whether milk is healthy or unhealthy or if low carbs are bad, you'll spend a lot of time and energy going in circles and perhaps get frustrated, but tell me - what have you truly gained?

On the other hand, if you just GET GOING that is something tangible - something you can measure. You can always toss out the dairy or add it back in, you can always manipulate your carbs or change your cardio, but you can't get back the time lost in information overload.

My advice is to find ONE program and start with that.

Here is a typical pattern.

Person picks up Body-for-LIFE, reads it, is inspired and gung-ho, ready to go.

Person picks up Muscle & Fitness magazine, reads that they should be counting calories. Instead of doing the palm-fist method, they now start counting calories but keep their free day.

Person logs online and finds an arm routine that promises 1 inch in 4 weeks. So they modify their upper body routine to include this workout and then decide they like doing arms better than legs, so they do two upper body workouts and one lower body workout each week and don't alternate as the BFL book suggests.

Then, 12 weeks later, the person says, "I don't look like the before/after pictures in the book ... I was following the program perfectly, what happened."

No, you didn't follow it. You changed it too much and too often. You didn't stick with one method long enough to find out how well it worked to have a baseline to make changes.

See, here's what just totally blows my mind. We can sit here on the forums and argue low intensity or high intensity until our keyboards break. But what if YOU do 12 weeks using low intensity cardio, and then another 12 weeks doing high intensity cardio. That's a 6 month sacrifice with some progress built in.

Tell me, if you found that all things being the same, your low intensity session produced the best results or vice versa, what does it REALLY MATTER what the debates online say? If it works for YOU, why would you want to change it because someone else "said so?"

Theoretical and hypothetical science is interesting. However, I'd wager many people here are simply interested in RESULTS. So, my advice. If you want RESULTS, get something going NOW. Find A SYSTEM and stop wasting energy worrying about if its the best, instead give that 100% and keep a detailed journal. When you are done, find another system and do the same. Keep doing this and eventually you'll find what works for you.

So you're not doing it optimally? OH NO! So it may take you an extra month to lose the weight you could have lost sooner. Since when is this a race? Shouldn't it be a lifestyle? Anyone no matter what method they use - whether optimal, suboptimal, or whatever - as long as they find a method that works, they can get to a healthy physique in under 5 years. For most, under 1 year. That's if they get it going, and don't get stuck wondering more about the best way than actually getting out and doing it SOME way.

Jeremy

this is an interesting post for me as a relative newbie to fitness and jsf something ive been thinking a lot about recently...

recently i've been trying to optimise my regime for cutting and so using these boards for research i have however been feeling 'swamped' by the 'great debates' that akm3 indentifies and so has left me feeling a bit lost and perhaps demotivated as a result of the overwhelming information...they are all of course valid i realise and interesting but perhaps i as a person am not ready for that level of detail yet.....

what ive been doing in the past (regular cardiovascular, occasional weights with no real program,more sensible eating - reducing junk foods though still cheating and drinking alcohol) - although not optimal they have in the past got results (1.5 stone weight loss etc) - so far - for me. i understand using a proper program would get better results - but from my perspective im changing the (bad) habits of a lifetime slowly but it seems to be working.......

this has helped to clarify in my mind after an xmas overindulgence - stop reading so many posts and worrying out optimal strategies and get back on with my own 'program' for a while (albeit subopitmal) !

In fact, this is the #1 reason why people don't succeed in many areas, not just health and fitness - but business or otherwise.

It is analysis paralysis.

Theoretical and hypothetical science is interesting. However, I'd wager many people here are simply interested in RESULTS. So, my advice. If you want RESULTS, get something going NOW. Find A SYSTEM and stop wasting energy worrying about if its the best, instead give that 100% and keep a detailed journal. When you are done, find another system and do the same.

Anyone no matter what method they use - whether optimal, suboptimal, or whatever - as long as they find a method that works, they can get to a healthy physique in under 5 years. For most, under 1 year. That's if they get it going, and don't get stuck wondering more about the best way than actually getting out and doing it SOME way.

Jeremy


Great post! Everyone should print it out and hang it up someplace. You told it like it is. :claplow:

Here is a typical pattern.

Person picks up Body-for-LIFE, reads it, is inspired and gung-ho, ready to go.

Person picks up Muscle & Fitness magazine, reads that they should be counting calories. Instead of doing the palm-fist method, they now start counting calories but keep their free day.

Person logs online and finds an arm routine that promises 1 inch in 4 weeks. So they modify their upper body routine to include this workout and then decide they like doing arms better than legs, so they do two upper body workouts and one lower body workout each week and don't alternate as the BFL book suggests.

Then, 12 weeks later, the person says, "I don't look like the before/after pictures in the book ... I was following the program perfectly, what happened."

No, you didn't follow it. You changed it too much and too often. You didn't stick with one method long enough to find out how well it worked to have a baseline to make changes.


Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou. You just summed up the last 10 months of my life!

I wasted so much time trying to figure out "the best" workout/nutrition that I continually spun my wheels into frustration and then threw in the towel.

I had previously lost 130 pounds following an internationally known nutrition plan and maintained that weight loss along with following a fitness plan that worked into my lifestyle and that I enjoyed.

THEN I decided to start tweaking things. 10 months later I've gained back 40 pounds and am tired of beating my head against the wall. So, I'm back to the plan that worked.

Will it work for everyone? Nope. Did it work for me? Yep. So why did I change it? Because in my journey to physical success, my self-esteem lagged far behind and in that, I felt that the plan that I followed and did well with "probably wasn't the best one because really, what do I know about proper fitness and nutrition?"

Duh. Who knows me and my body better than me? No one.

So, in summary: Do what feels right to you.

MD

So, in summary: Do what feels right to you.

MD

No, I don't think he said that. He pointed out people are jumping around changing things on their own or not doing anything just thinking about it.

We did what feels right to us. We would never lift enough weights to do any good or go to gym. Our diets would be full of candy and cake. Those things could feel right to many people.

The "experts" do have solid ideas, the workout plans you see printed aren't out there to injury or produce no results or opposite ones. It is when we are constantly seeking the quickest and easiest path and start jumping around. Sometimes it is becouse it doesn't "feel right".

he said "No, you didn't follow it. You changed it too much and too often. You didn't stick with one method long enough to find out how well it worked to have a baseline to make changes."

You are an example of someone who stuck with it and realized what works, you weaken at one point, but your knowledge brought you back. Not because it feels right but because you gained knowledge and saw results.

We did what feels right to us. We would never lift enough weights to do any good or go to gym. Our diets would be full of candy and cake. Those things could feel right to many people.

I don't know if I agree 100% with that. I spent most of the Christmas holidays doing exactly those things (eating junk and not exercising) and sure as heck, it didn't feel right to me at all. Perhaps the seconds as I shoved the food in my face it felt okay, but when I had time to sit and think about what I had done, the guilt and anger at myself for being so weak didn't feel good.

I do agree that there are many people here with great strategies and plans to get people whipped into shape. I for one; however, know that for my longterm health, I could never follow a strict plan. I tried it (actually many). It didn't work. It didn't feel good to me.

On a very, very generic level, I take the advice of people here (eat less, exercise more). Other than that, I do my own thing. How many days a week do I work out? Whenever I can fit it in. Some weeks it's 5, some weeks it's 2. I eat whatever I want in moderation. I drink milk, I eat chocolate and the fruit I eat!?!... THE SHAME!

Will I ever be some 12% fitness model? Nope. I don't have the drive to do that (besides, the physical scars of being a fattie will never fade). I want to feel comfortable in my own skin and not be out of breath from climbing a set of stairs. Simple goals really.

I think my saying "Do what feels right" was probably made because of the forum we're in. People here are on the path to physical wellness. I guess I assumed that forum members have at least some base knowledge of what it takes to lose weight. I know that's not always the case though. If I walked into a McDonalds*** and said "People, the best way to get physically fit is to do what feels right", well then I should be taken to task.

Maybe I should have said "Do what feels right to you, but make sure there is sound physical benefit to the tasks you will be performing".

***Disclaimer - In no way am I saying that only out of shape people go to McDonalds. It's the only real example I could come up with.

JSF is not where i come for a consensus. Its where i come for a discussion, for varied opinions and different view points. I come to this site because it reminds me that there is no perfect answer as pretty much everything is subjective and needs to be put in a larger context. I have to weigh the evidence presented for myself.
I dont think it is a failing but rather a strength of the JSF forum! and would not want it any other way.

Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou. You just summed up the last 10 months of my life!

I think that summed up the last six months of my fitness world, and the funny part is... I know better. I used to scream "consistency" to the rafters, and now taking a good look back... I think I was about as dependable as the rhythm method.

Musically, I find the same problem of late. Now that I have the avenue to get my music recorded and out there, I spend more time trying to monkey with the songs, changing, recording and re-recording parts rather than just getting them down and listening to a complete product.

Can you say "wake up call"? I think I just had one.

-R

this is an excellent thread topic, i'll be dropping my .02, no doubt. judging from some of the responses so far, i think that a clarification needs to be made about what the conclusions are based upon. there is a HUGE difference between opinion vs science; emotion vs intellect; subjectivity versus objectivity; fact vs hearsay.

my stance is that the more objective, the better. the goal of science is to remove opinion & subjectivity, so we can come closer to the bare facts. this is why i find value in research. personal opinions are a dime a dozen. any protocol can work, but what's optimal for a given set of conditions?

i'll be back.

bottome line. out of any advice you will get from ANYONE.

if you follow swole cats advice. you will benefit greatly more so than anyone else.

why go against someone who represents thousands of people with nothing but 100% sucess.

I thank you much for this. :tu:

~SC~

bottome line. out of any advice you will get from ANYONE.

if you follow swole cats advice. you will benefit greatly more so than anyone else.

why go against someone who represents thousands of people with nothing but 100% sucess.

the goal of science is to remove opinion & subjectivity, so we can come closer to the bare facts.


Maybe it is the goal of your science to do that, but I would argue it's not the goal of science in general. In any case I do not believe there are such things as 'bare facts'. Everything we do, say, think or dream has gone through the filter of our brains. Even your written word, and mine that follows, cannot possibly be read 100% subjectively. Ask 100 people what you wrote in your above statement and you will most likely not get the same answer, even if you asked everyone to be a subjective as possible. The only way you could get the same answer from everyone is for them to simply repeat your words, but without any interpretation they are meaningless. And that would be boring and quite pointless.

If you look at all the major scientific breakthroughs (well at least in physics - I am more familiar with that than biology) they do not come from looking at the bare facts and drawing 'the obvious conclusion'. They have come from someone adding a bit of 'art' to the science. Going out on a limb, interpreting the ‘facts’ in a perhaps subtly new or unconventional way - often in a shroud of controversy, sometimes never getting a chance to have their theories really tested, sometimes fundamentally changing the way we see the universe. Science may provide a foundation, but even experiments that have ‘proved’ something with ‘bare facts’ may turn out not to be the whole story in 20+ years time, when we might know a bit more and/or interpret the ‘facts’ a bit differently. How many times have out ‘fundamental truths’ been turned on its head – usually about every 50 years or so (in physics) when one generation of scientist dies off, to leave the next generation to interpret the experiments differently.

I’m not trying to say science isn’t valuable or that we shouldn’t try to understand the physics of us and our universe. However, I really think the above statement does not do justice to the greater scientific community.

Perhaps I have interpreted too much into that statement and it is written in response to a lot of the unscientific ‘mumbo jumbo’ that you see perpetrated on a daily basis. In that case I apologize for making an incorrect interpretation of your statement. Of course it is always frustrating to see ‘facts’ presented in your area of expertise that you know to be definitely not factual and even have a body of evidence suggesting complete disagreement. Just because today’s ‘facts’ may be tomorrows ‘myths’ does not mean we should throw out our scientific understanding or not endeavor to discover how things work. Presenting the community here with studies supporting or refuting certain methodologies is certainly valuable and appreciated. However, I would suggest that the potential interpretation of your statement ‘science knows everything’ or 'science is fact' or 'science is the truth' interpretation of your statement that may be made can alienate both scientists and non-scientists alike and I do not think it does anything to enhance your obvious credibility.

Alan,

That's the truth - huge difference between opinion, fact, etc. I would ask you, however, "more objective, the better" - better for what? Better compared to what?

I only ask because in my experience, success is about heart, passion, courage, and spirit. These are not tangible, objective items. However, despite all of the science, the common element with those who succeeded at transforming their physiques was not some empirical fact about cardio or training - it was their passion. Most had some strong reason bigger than their obstacles that gave them the courage to succeed. The ones who failed? They had the same science, access to similar programs, but guess what ... they didn't have the passion or drive and they fell short of the mark.

I am being very objective and removing opinion when I keep track of clients and those who don't reach their goals and those who do. The majority who don't are the ones who try to get too analytical, want every little explanation, want to debate the menus, etc. The ones who succeed invest in coaching, place their trust in me, and passionately pursue their goals and succeed. So, objectively, I have to say that heart and passion and the subjectivity is "better" than the objectivity. We can be objective when we talk about it, when we debate it, when we write about it.

But with my clients, whether they are health coaching clients or business coaching clients, they want results. And we don't get results with flowcharts and scientific analysis. We get results with action, personal development, vision, commitment, courage, and through the pursuit of greatness. These are not empirical qualities, but they are the elements of success.

Jeremy


this is an excellent thread topic, i'll be dropping my .02, no doubt. judging from some of the responses so far, i think that a clarification needs to be made about what the conclusions are based upon. there is a HUGE difference between opinion vs science; emotion vs intellect; subjectivity versus objectivity; fact vs hearsay.

my stance is that the more objective, the better. the goal of science is to remove opinion & subjectivity, so we can come closer to the bare facts. this is why i find value in research. personal opinions are a dime a dozen. any protocol can work, but what's optimal for a given set of conditions?

i'll be back.

Today, it seems junk science rules in fitness and health matters. While I spent too much time in class rooms in my life and appreciate the objectivity of true science. I am well aware of the PHD mills turning out a below average crop each year that publish for the press clippings.

While degrees are nice to have on a resume, I always like common sense, a lost commodity.

I would say that the "goal of science" is actually "to help people."

Science isn't some crazy philosophical or religious imperative. Science exists to help people make informed choices and to help people do things that benefit them that they couldn't or wouldn't do before.

Oh, its goal isn't necessarily to only help people do "good" things, or to improve the human condition. No, its goal is to facilitate individuals, to aid people in doing what they decide to do for unscientific reasons. Science provides no normative force, that always comes from elsewhere, and you shouldn't blame science for the bad things people are willing to do to one another.

Abstract ideas like "pure science," or "objectivity" are only useful insofar as much as they help science help people. "Pure science" is good because we don't always know how a scientific discovery will help people, so we want to follow promising lines of research because something useful might come of it in the future. But science that is never useful to anybody doesn't make the science gods happy or anything, it's just wasted effort. And "objectivity" is an idea from outside of science that generally aids the practices of science in being effective, it's not something that science gives to the world. Science provides no normative force.

Look at the Ptolemaic system of astronomy. It starts thousands of years ago, and the system on which it is based is absurd. The Sun does not go around the Earth. The whole "epicycle" thing was really embarassing. It's certainly not objective, as it makes a whole bunch of assumptions based on the origin stories of arbitrary, local mythologies.

But all the work that guys and girls put in on that science of that system was not time wasted. There's a big difference between the Ptolemaic system and some fantasy cosmology you'd read in David Eddings. Neither of them presents an accurate history of the origin of the universe, neither is objective, but the Ptolemaic system does something crucial and scientific -

It predicts with precision and accuracy the positions of stars and planets in the night sky.

This does many things, from letting navigators figure out where they are and where they're going to letting businessmen keep track of what day it is. The people who developed this system established a vast commercial empire, and as the system spread, commerce improved, and ships could go farther and come home safely. This led to myriad benefits for a whole mess of millions of individuals throughout history.

If there were a rival system that correctly put the earth revolving around the sun, but didn't accurately predict the positions of stars in the night sky, I'd have to be a moron to use it to navigate my ship!

The Ptolemaic system is a scientific success story, not an embarassing failure. Everybody would have been a lot worse off without it, and whoever funded that research definitely got his money's worth, even though it was wrong, because it was useful. Science can be both wrong and successful at the same time. That's how it works.

So, eventually Copernicus comes along, eventually things change. Big deal. Science provides no normative force. It only sticks around so long as it is useful. Then new science comes along, and people do different things with it.

So, when you're looking at weight loss science, don't worry so much about whether or not it's "right" or whether it's ever going to change. That's really just speculation and a waste of your time. You should instead think, "Is this information useful to me? Are the evidence presented here and the conclusions drawn useful? Will they help me achieve my goals?"

If the answer is yes, then the science has achieved its goal as far as you're concerned. If the answer is no, then it hasn't, at least, not yet.

Of course, if it's very obviously bad science (as most weight loss science is), then that's another matter. If the experiments are shady or insufficient, or the evidence presented isn't convincing, then you should know enough about the scientific method to know that this particular study is useless and you should look for evidence elsewhere.

And also, if the conclusion of a study is "There's not evidence enough to support that A is the truth. B might be the truth," which is how most weight loss and fitness studies conclude, that's pretty much useless, and you shouldn't waste your time on it. You get no bonus fat-loss points for siding with whoever appears at any given moment to be winning an argument that will not be decided until the far future. You only benefit from information that is useful right now - and if the scientists haven't come up with it, yet, then we should ignore them until they do.

Because we're not scientists here, we're practitioners. For the most part, we're about application.

The lesson is, if two contradictory ideas that can't both be "true" both help you lose weight, you don't have to wait for the "truth" to come out in order to make use of them. As long as it has helped, the science has been successful.

welp, i sure didn't expect my comment to open up a discussion on the philosophy of science, but hey, that was some nice input. the main point of my post was that there's a lot of misinformation perpetuated by folks who simply are not aware of the science behind the controversies we have here in the fitness realm.

NEdge - i'm not in this to boost my credibility. i'm only here to pass on the right information while thinning out the stubborn air of mythology that persists in the public domain. some will be open minded to the science of it, some won't, it's your choice.

jeremy - i've been in private practice as 1st a personal trainer, then a nutritionist, for a combined span since 1990. i now support a family with my private nutrition practice as my bread & butter, so trust me that i know a thing or 2 about client care. i hold regular lectures on the subject for trainers & dietitians. everyone runs their practices differently, but i've never presented clients with, as you mention, "flow charts & scientific analysis" unless they specifically ask for it. the latter is usually reserved to the health professionals i provide continuing education for. my consultations with clients are about the implementation of a program based on the proper starting points, adjustments according to client feedback & results, and finally simple steps to reach realistic, measurable goals - that ultimately culminate in lifestyle changes for the better. the subjective/intangible elements of motivation & determination are a definitely critical parts of the equation, but i'd have to disagree with you that an order of rank can be assigned to the objective vs subjective elements of client care.

rtestes - well, i guess we are on the same page to a large degree. the fitness industry is loaded with myths perpetuated by folks who achieved great physiques inspite of what they did, not because of it. i've built a career around synthesizing scientific research & practical application in the area of fitness & nutrition, so these myths are clearer to me than they are to much of the lay public & people who are merely recreationally involved in fitness. i feel a sense of duty to educate folks on the real deal, & that's a big part of what i do for a living. science has gotten us to the moon & back, and it can certainly help in the endeavor of changing body composition. there are many ways to skin a cat, but some are better than others. common sense is another can of worms, because someone with a lot of sense once said that it ain't that common.

pete - very insightful commentary, i can definitely appreciate the delineation you made between science as a means to an end versus science being a self-evident end. yes, we are practitioners, but it definitely helps to be open to the objective side of the coin versus the "well, it worked for him" side. there are many ways to accomplish fitness goals. i'm just taking it as a given that we are all striving for the optimal routes. it's also a given that everyone has a different set of individual conditions & circumstances, so of course contigencies abound in each case.

now gimmie a sec, & i'll get back to the original topic.

Many fitness topics come up over and over and the various merits are weighed and dissected, argued over, studies posted, etc, etc.

When you examine it closely, there are FEW things that most fitness people would agree on. Some of those might be "Eating nothing but Snickers bars & Twix all day in front of a PC with no exercise is unhealthy". I can't think of another one that you wouldn't find SOMEONE arguing.

This post is dedicated to the common ones!

1. Which form of cardio is "Superior"? High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) or standard Longer Term Lower Intensity (Normal, LISS, other names).

"Superior" is the key word here as they both seem to have benefits and disadvantages (This is a common theme).
One CLEAR advantage to HIIT is that it takes less time. Everything else is up for debate. (Which one burns more fat, preserves more muscle, builds stronger cardiovascular fitness, builds endurance, etc).

2. What type of cardio is "Superior"? Cardio first thing in morning on empty stomach vs. pre-workout nutrition.

Both have benefits and disadvantages. "Eat first" people say you preserve more muscle. "Don't bother" people say your body HAS to burn fat because there is no other fuel to burn. Who knows?

3. Ketogenic (Atkins type) vs. Healthy Carbs vs. 40/40/20 vs. x/y/z vs etc, etc, etc -- Which one is "Superior"?

Like the others, you have to say Superior at WHAT. They all have advantages and disadvantages. I think MOST people would agree that diet is the most important portion of any exercise plan. I think most would also agree then, that the diet you are able to stick to - and that won't kill or harm you - is "Best".

Many believe the Ketogenic diets are unsustainable in the longterm, and being in a ketogenic state is unhealthy. Many don't. I think most would agree that the main lesson from Ketogenic diets (reduce excess REFINED carbohydrates) is a good lesson. To my knowledge, no one thinks snickers, soda, beer, etc are a healthy part of any fitness diet.

Macronutrient ratios depend greatly on what goal the person is aiming for, getting and retaining bigger muscles? Dropping fat while keeping muscle? Dropping fat and not caring about muscle? Just losing "weight"? -- Who knows.

"Carbs are bad" vs "The right kind of carbs are healthy" or "Milk/Dairy is bad vs. nah-uh!" debates also fall into this category.

4. What is the "best" exercise regimen?
Again, "Best" depends entirely on your goals, what is healthy, and what you can stick to.

MaxOT vs. Body for life pyramiding, Jogging vs. Treadmill, "Heavy" versus "High Rep", 3 times a week vs. Everyday, etc, etc all falls in here. -- Who knows?!?
1) given that each mode has its properly corresponding nutritional support, HIIT is better for fat loss & LBM retention than LISS. however, not everyone is cardiologically or orthopedically capable of doing near-anaerobic threshold training, so LISS will do just fine; intensity of cardio is a relatively minor factor in the big picture of body comp change. about HISS vs LISS for fat loss, when the same calories are burned, there is no difference in fat oxidation. so the "fat burning zone" is indeed a myth. conclusion: it's best theoretically to cycle, or "periodize" different intensity levels if you are physically capable, because they all cause specific training effects & adaptations, much like different repetition ranges. but go with your personal preference or sport-specific requirement, because for the most part, there's no difference in fat loss effect.


2) fasted training is the suboptimal choice. this is a hugely misunderstood issue that needs a good depth of explanation, so bear with me. it's a given that the actual demand for carbs & protein will vary according to the magnitude of the training bout - cardio or other. but regardless of magnitude, in the during & posttrained state, there is a marked increase in insulin sensitivity; in other words an increased reception to insulin & better use of the fuels being driven into the cells. this cellular receptivity diminishes progressively as time passes the postW phase. logically, it makes sense to have your carbs during a point where their storage as fat will be minimized.. folks concerned with blunting lipolysis, look at the choices you have:

A) prefuel, then replenish substrate according to depletion demand, yet decrease during & postW lipolysis.
B) allow for greater during & postW lipolysis to occur, yet delay your intake of prot/carbs for ingestion during a time of less receptivity to insulin.

choice A is better. given the same amount of carbs total in the day, carbs proximal to the training bout temporarily inhibit lypolysis, but they will also counteract catabolic agents & begin the eventual anabolic process sooner. with choice B, carbs will simply end up being ingested during a time of lesser cellular sensitivity/receptivity, & therefore stand a greater chance of being partitioned into the adipose.. so what you're trying to avoid happens anyway by a different means - minus the improved recovery & anticatabolic benefits.

to further tie these concepts together, heightened insulin sensitivity (again, this means cellular reception to insulin & thus maximal use of circulating fuel substrates) occurs at 3 points during the day: waking, during training, & posttraining. this fact supports my point even further. if you don't have any carbs precardio in the morning, then that leaves you with one less opportunity in the day to have carbs when their potential for storage in adipose is minimized. to reiterate, fasted training is suboptimal for LBM retention. you can achieve the same fat loss results otherwise, while maximizing carb use & tissue recovery.

on an adjacent note, cardio cannot be designated as a "fat loss" activity in & of itself. that's just like saying high reps for fat loss, low reps for mass. sounds like a familiar misconception, doesn't it. it is a given that either weights or cardio cause fat oxidation. however, you can in fact designate weights for both the goal of LBM retention/gain as well as the goal of fat loss. a valid reason to add cardio to your plan is to burn more calories, which can indirectly contribute to fat loss by causing a negative energy balance (but so can weights). another valid reason to do cardio is to force the adaptations (relatively) exclusive to cardio - which include improving vo2 max, increasing lung volume & cardiac stroke volume, improving coronary perfusion, etc. these adaptations may have crossover benefit to weight training, so there becomes a symbiosis between training modes; possibly even a synergy between the two - NOT because cardio is for "burning fat". let the combination of your training & your nutrient/calorie balance determine that.

when i worked with kip brennan of the LA kings, our goal was to pile on the lean mass while keeping his BF below 6.5%. prefueling & replenishing properly around his cardio training made all the difference in the world. he actually was able to lower his BF while gaining LBM because of better performance that was spawned from quicker recovery.


3) which diet is best really depends on an individual's medical issues & performance or physical goals, not to mention their corresponding volume & type of training. i'll focus on low vs moderate vs high carb, without getting into stratifying their exact compositions. low carb atkins-type diets are justifiable for folks who have compromised mobility or very limited physical capacity. for example, bed-ridden patients have absolutely no need for the amount of carbs that recreational trainees typically require, thus they are relegated to low carbing it by default. ketogenic diets are normal clinical protocol for children with seizure disorder. however, extra lengths must be undertaken to insure that the acidic nature of ketogenic plans doesn't rob the body of its bone stores. most competitive athletes whose sports involve maximal endurance, strength, or a combination, have been observed to benefit from a diet composed of at least 50% carb. however, highly trained athletes are much more adaptable to most any type of plan. for example, recent studies have compared short-term low & high carb treatments on trained endurance athletes & found no difference in performance. there's also sport-specific contingencies, because bodybuilding goals don't necessarily include physical performance; it's often a game of aesthetics. 40/40/20 is a popular middle-of-the-road benchmark (at least on the net) for BB purposes, but it tends to underestimate fat requirements under hypocaloric conditions, while overestimating protein requirements under hypercaloric conditions. optimal macro composition of diet is the one area where the particulars can only truly be determined by individual trial & error after reasonable baseline trial points are established.

as for the other details, milk & dairy are great protein & calcium sources for those who can digest them with no gastrointestinal disturbances, & many cannot.. good carbs versus bad carbs is a matter of nutrient density affected by processing. but even then, a small amount of refined carbs in the diet is of no consequence if the majority of your sources are nutrient-dense whole or minimally processed choices. also, people put way too much stock in the glycemic index of foods, when it has a whole list of problems that challenge its validity. obviously, volumes can be written on the subject of diet, but suffice it to say that one macro composition's appropriateness over another's really depends, depends, depends on a long list of individual factors.



4) the best training program is one that has a shallow enough progression curve that allows for proper motor learning & injury-free adaptation to force/load. training systems come under many different names/guises, but they're essentially just various permutations of progressive load application. i personally am a fan of periodization, whether it's simple regular adjustment of 1 variable at a time, or complex periodization that has multiple variables altered simultaneously. as far as rep range is concerned, again, periodizing is optimal. don't get me wrong, you don't have to periodize to see results, but it's a great tool to pull out when stagnation (psychological or physical) hits. the body has a broad continuum of energy systems, & each rep range taps into different proportions of the coalescing oxidative, glycolytic, & ATP-CP systems. touching upon various degrees of each energy system can keep the training program fresh in terms of minimizing plateaus. periodization is usually thought of interms of macro- (year), meso- (month), & microcycles (week). the following model i concocted is one of my personal faves, & i also get great feedback from clients who try it out. this a "conjugated" model that applies to highly conditioned subjects who require more concentrated microphases to dodge training efficiency and maintain a novel training effect, while still maximizing each training adaptation along the energy system continuum:

week 1: 15 or more reps per set, include one working set per exercise in the 8-14 range.
week 2: 8-14 reps per set, include one working set per exercise in the 4-7 range.
Week 3: 4-7 reps per set, include one working set per exercise in the 15 or more range.
week 4: instinctive week: choice of mixing training variables at will, taking off completely, or engaging in active rest. action taken on week 4 is determined by the internal cues/feelings/instinct of the athlete.

repeat this mesocycle 1 more time before taking a "mandatory" 7-day layoff from formal exercise. i'm a firm believer that trainees should take every 4th to 8th week completely off from formal gym work. those who've had either acute or chronic overuse injuries are much quicker to agree with me on this.

there is no set-in-stone best periodization scheme, adapt the numbers & phase lengths to your personal sensibilities.. continuing on with this subject, you might not have thought of periodizing your bodypart training frequency instead of scratching your head over what frequency is best. the benefit of periodizing here is to keep things fresh, & delve into the specifically different systemic effects of varying training frequency or "exposure to force". basically what you'd do is go through progressions where you gradually increase the frequency of training your muscles while you decrease the volume of sets. note that the sets outlined are working sets, not warmup sets (which can vary), which i didn't include. also, since each mesocycle is 3 weeks long, employ the repetition periodization of 15+, 8-14, 4-7 for each week respectively within each cycle. here's a 10-week scheme a few of my highly conditioned trainees are enjoying currently, because they adapt very quickly to normal linear protocols. feel free to try it out, or adapt its principles to your own judgement:

CYCLE 1
week 1-3: train each bodypart once a week using a high volume of sets (12-16 sets per bodypart; 3-4 exercises per bodypart). this involves the typical traditional bodybuilding 4 or 5-day split.

CYCLE 2
week 4-6: train each bodypart twice a week using a moderate volume of sets (6-10 sets per bodypart; 2 exercises per bodypart). this involves a 2-day split, some split it up as upper/lower body, etc.

week 7: off

CYCLE 3
week 8-10: train each bodypart 3x per week using a low volume of sets (2-4 sets per bodypart; 1 exercise per bodypart). this can be done with a whole-body workout done 3x per week. the volume of exercise per muscle is very low & it comes out to equal or less than the total volume done on the previous splits, so don't let this frequency alarm you. just make sure to separate the training days by at least 1 day, ie, train MWF.

many bodybuilders choose to simply alternate cycles 1 & 2, and are reluctant to employ cycle 3, but once they try it, they do enjoy the higher frequency of anabolic response it yields.. like i said periodization isn't absolutely necessary, especially for beginning trainees. there are many folks who like the simplicity of linear protocols, & get great results from doing the same thing year in & year out. however, research is on the side of periodization for better physical performance gains in competitive athletes, & there is also research supporting its superiority for body comp improvement. again, feel free to mess with the phase lengths & numbers to suit you if you decide to give some of this stuff a try.

yes, we are practitioners, but it definitely helps to be open to the objective side of the coin versus the "well, it worked for him" side.

It's my opinion that science at the very core of its nature can be neither objective nor subjective. As Tim O'Brien put it, "Evidence is neither true nor false, it's just evident." (sorry if I misquote - paraphrasing from memory)

I don't think we're talking about a difference of perspective here, I don't think the Hegelian dialectic is appropriate in this case, and I think what people call "objectivity" in science could be better defined in terms of a "preponderance of evidence." Our choice to draw conclusions from available data has subjective or objective qualities. It is a more "objective" choice to go with the preponderance of evidence and a more "subjective" one, though not necessarily a "wrong" one, to go with a conclusion that is less supported by available data.

If there were a preponderance of evidence that resolved these questions, an appeal to objectivity would make more sense. From what little I've read, I don't think such a preponderance exists. I think science, largely because of deliberate interference from private industry, but also just because of the way it is, is a long ways away from generating this preponderance.

And if there is such a preponderance of evidence, the scientific community has not succeeded in getting it out there in a form that is useful to us.

As such, there is no "objective side of the coin." There is only the "well, it worked for him" side with different volumes and types of evidence. Which means there's really no coin at all.

I say this not as a scientist, but as somebody making judgements with help from other people's science, of course. It seems that you yourself have taken part in some of this research, so you would have a different relationship to your evidence than I would.

I say this not as a scientist,


Darn! I got half way though that and though, Hmm I wonder what kind of science this guy practices? Oh well, wrong again!

Here's a debate to add to that list which should end all the debates:

Debate: Do you stick to a plan while ignoring all the other information outside of the source of that plan or do you attempt to absorb all the information that's out there?

The answer is neither. You have to find a middle zone. You must pick a plan and stick to it and not waffle. But you should always keep your mind open to alternative concepts provided you don't become obsessed.

Most people seem to side on one extreme or another-it's easy to use the phrase paralysis by analysis to describe people who are curious and to listen to Nike and "Just do it". But don't abandon the pursuit of knowlege which can enhance your underestanding of nutrition, physiology, weight training, kinesiology, chemistry, etc. Decide the level of knowlege you want and allocate your time and energy appropriately, but avoid the pitfalls of information saturation. You will become paralyzed by the fear that you're not on the absolute best plan.

It´s obvious that people that just read about how to train and eat will never get any progress at all. You will have to do it!

Because true knowlege comes from finding out how your body works. To try different alternatives and plans and try to understand what´s happening. Because the goal is to become the number one expert on your own needs and your own body. The goal is to not depend on others and what they tell you to do. It´s about trial and error and if you want to be able to understand in a scientific way what´s going on with your body reading and discussing your results and plans with others doing the same thing will help.

To just let other people tell you how you should train and eat will not work long term. Even if they are experts and you get results. Because if you dont understand what you are doing and why you are in trouble, IMO. And sooner or later you will stop training and eating properly.

Debates about things discussed in this thread are good if they help you to better understand and analyze your own results and progress. As a tool to help you reach your goals. But it´s you that must try it and find out what is true and what is not. For you.

Regards!

bump for those who missed this uberkool thread & all of its provocative input from all contributing - not to mention the novella i wrote, lol. if there's anything i wrote there that throws you off, just holler & i'll clear it up.

It's funny I was sitting at 175lb (5' 10") not overweight but not happy about my 34" waist edging towards 36" pants. I saw John's transformation, read his bio ( where his job was similar to mine ) and just figured why not? Today is day one....tomorrow is another day. I just decided to walk and start eating more relative to my activity level (kind of like quitting smoking, you just need to decide to up and do it). In a very unscientific and unmeasured way I reduced calories totally based on feel and kept walking.
With regards to eating....I just simply gave up MickeyD's, Softdrinks and white bread....converting to water most days and whole wheat alternatives (cereals, breads, brown rice instead of white, sweet potato instead of white potatos, alot more oatmeal and bran cereal....so it was more conversions rather than simply cutting it out all together ).
Same with my love of icecream...I moved over to frozen yogart and never looked back.

SLOWLY building up miles but incorporating exercise in a way to was less obvious to me.

Walking further to the bus. Going for a walk at lunch. Taking stairs. Parking further out in parking lots.

In the span of a year (or so) I dropped to 137 - 139lbs (lost some amount of muscle I gather and now have a 28" waist and a fairly lean but athletic appearance). My focus has shifted to incorporate some general weight training for health not for bulk and I couldn't be happier. I figure my energy levels are good. I walk when I feel like it, I bike on other days, I do Interval training, workout with weights etc... I constantly mix it up and it works for me.

I think experimentation is the key but other than avoiding acclimitization I don't think people should be in too much of a race to get the job done. It's supposed to be a lifestyle type thing otherwise there's a finish line. Generalized good health isn't suppose to have a finish line. Don't set the bar too high analyzing what's going to get it done faster. Try stuff, if you don't like it you'll never stick with it. Best thing to do is to drop it and move on to some other activity. Even if it's a less productive activity but you enjoy who cares if you lose fat (or gain muscle) in 3month or 6months or even a year. So long as you get off your ass and do "something" you're miles ahead. Eat a resonable amount of healthy calories (relative to your activity level) and enjoy some of life's little treats once in a blue (as the Oracle said "Have a cookie, you'll feel better" (just don't have 6 in one sittting ;) )....you are on the right track in life in gerenal.

This is just my take. The debates are fun... It is interesting to read the sports science take. The information is useful in making healthier choices. But unless the Olympics, the Boston Marathon or some sort of competative sport is your goal or career...I'd say take it slow....work it into your everyday routine and just enjoy the benefits. They will come. Life ain't a race to the finish anyway.

One of the best threads ever! Bottom line - take the info. you get in this forum and run with it. If it works for you, stick with it.

Yea the original poster was a genius, this should be stickeyed! ;)

Yea the original poster was a genius, this should be stickeyed! ;)
If you liked his thread, let him know. Who started this genius thread anyway?