Articles based on science

[spesmilitis]

Does any have any body building articles by scientists instead of random guys on the internet.

The posts here are good, but I always taking everything with a grain of salt. What may work for someone may not work for another. Knowing the science behind the advice is always usefull.

 

[manuva]

Often you'll find clinical laboratory evidence is far behind basic strength training principles.

For example, a report was published recently which said there 'may be some evidence' towards the fact that the human body can uptake more than 1g of protein per pound of bodyweight per day.

Serious strength trainers have known this - and been actively preaching it - for decades.

There are many good sites around that operate upon laboratory-tested principles, there's a few in Australia from government bodies like the Australian Institute of Sport, however I'm not sure of any international sites.

 

[whistler]

Does any have any body building articles by scientists instead of random guys on the internet.

The posts here are good, but I always taking everything with a grain of salt. What may work for someone may not work for another. Knowing the science behind the advice is always usefull.

exrx.net shows good form and backs it up with real research.

True, "time in the field" can give you knowledge. But, the science is the truth, and with it, you can ensure that you're not wasting your time. It doesn't take much to develop a false belief. Once we get an idea that we like, we tend to only see the evidence that supports it, regardless of how wrong it might actually be.

Case in point, the trainers at most gymns are clueless yet sure of themselves.

 

[white belt]

Science is useful but there is no substitute for experience, bb no much more about bb than any scientist by virtue of the fact that he is an active participant. Sure science is usefull and interesting but I would not consult a scientist about adding weight when you could talk to Arnold.

 

[spesmilitis]

how about scientists who work with athletes, or athletes themselves, like Billy Rush. That guy is light years ahead of other strength and conditioning coaches.

 

[whistler]

how about scientists who work with athletes, or athletes themselves, like Billy Rush. That guy is light years ahead of other strength and conditioning coaches.

There you go. I think it's implied that the "scientists" in question work in a field related to muscle development.

 

[mrRuckus]

You can find a bunch of "studies" that go both ways on lots of topics.

You can find "studies" funded by pharmaceutical companies that so-and-so natural herb doesn't do anything... or is harmful.

If you want to know how much protein is best to take when lifting first take 1g/lb then 2g/lb and see which gets you bigger quicker.

I'd rather find a starting point from big guys with years of experience who train other guys to get big and then tailor for myself from there than some "science" with hundreds of conflicting studies.

 

[Throttle]

Scientific research is nothing less and nothing more than hypothesis testing. I would say rigorous hypothesis testing, but research is only as rigorous as its design. I've got a better idea. Why don't YOU find some scientific research, and those of us versed in the jargon can help you decide whether it's rigorous or not, and applicable or not.

Big guys with years of experience (as Ruckus succinctly put it) have been doing their own sort of hypothesis testing. Why don't you take some of their hypotheses and test them for the sub-population most relevant to you -- YOU!

OTOH there's been some good scientific articles posted here lately that explain why certain myths (dietary cholesterol is bad for you; calipers are just as good as dunking; etc.) are flat out wrong. Is that the kind of scientific articles you're looking for? I certainly HOPE you take a bunch of anonymous internet posters' musings with more than just a grain of salt.

 

[Road Demon]

OK,

Glad to see someone who is curious on getting the right information rather than hersay.

We spend billions of dollars on research for no reason...lol.

As scientist, I would have to disagree with these guys with years of experience "testing their own hypothesis", often their sample size is limited, lack of control subjects, subjective measurements, etc. You get the picture...

Their are often a lot of garbage on the net or in these weight training forums.

Personally, To start I would pick up a few good textbooks in exercise physiology and perhaps the NSCA-CSCS book:

Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (Hardcover)
by Thomas R. Baechle (Editor), Roger W. Earle (Editor)

After getting the background info then you can consult the actual articles in the field for specific protocols and techniques:

You should look for consensus of the different studies, often the best place for a non-expert in a field is to find a " review" paper that is reviews often hundreds of significant studies by an expert in the field. You can then use the review paper to track down individual papers to further investigate your topic.

Then you can apply the principles in the journal paper, in your own training.

FYI: There are different levels or quality of journals in each field. Think the better quality studies or more interesting ones are often in the higher tier journals. These studies are peer reviewed (ie buy other experts in the field with PhD and MDs).

This is perhaps the best journal for exercise related topics:

Med Sci Sports Exerc

These are also good quality journals related to strength and conditioning exercise:

J Strength Cond Res
J Sci Med Sport
Eur J Appl Physio
J Sports Sci
Sport Medicine
Sports Biomech

Type your query into google scholar or the search box of pubmed:

pubmed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed

I would suggest looking as the national strength and conditioning journal, not bad research, less techical jargon:

http://www.nsca-lift.org/Publications/#SCJ

You can go on the net, print out the abstracts, then go to local university library to get the papers for free. Some journal offer the papers free to the public if the paper is over a year old.

I train elite athletes, and I often check the peer reviewed journal paper for new ideas to incorporate in their training plans...trust me that is the best place for the best techniques/ideas to give yourself the edge. My athletes win.

If you have specific questions, I can point you in the right direction. Im sure mrRuckus & throttle can also help you out on your quest as they have a high level of knowledge.

cheers, j

 

[mrRuckus]

OK,

As scientist, I would have to disagree with these guys with years of experience "testing their own hypothesis", often their sample size is limited, lack of control subjects, subjective measurements, etc. You get the picture...

But yet they still manage to come up with new things that people use for years and then science comes along much later and tests it and says "hey you were right." There's plenty of things that people see working daily that science has barely bothered with.

Science is largely based off joe schmoe stumbling on something by accident and him going "hey how'd that happen" and then some scientist takes a guess and tests to see if he's right... then if he's lucky he can use those conclusions to come up with new ideas to prove something else.

 

[whistler]

Science is largely based off joe schmoe stumbling on something by accident and him going "hey how'd that happen" and then some scientist takes a guess and tests to see if he's right... then if he's lucky he can use those conclusions to come up with new ideas to prove something else.

In some cases, that is true. But in most cases, the public is simply out of the loop while the researchers are at the cutting edge.

The journals Road Demon mentioned are the means by which that cutting edge knowledge is spread. If they're published monthy or bimonthly, that's probably somewhere between 30 and 60 fully detailed reports per month!

But, of course, you have to understand what the heck they're talking about to reap any benefits. Try your luck at your nearest university library. You might find the stuff more digestible than you might imagine.