ACSM gets spanked

[Protobuilder]

You guys may have already seen this (it's from summer of '04).

http://www.i-a-r-t.com/articles/certification articles/ACSM Exercise Position.pdf

Basically, some folks shred the ACSM's Position Stand on Resistance Training. To sum up, the ACSM apparently advocates periodized, multi-set workouts using specific rep ranges for specific effects (power, hypertrophy, etc.). This paper basically shreds the recommendations and argues that the ACSM ignored significant contrary evidence. They say that all the complicated variable manipulation req'd for periodized schemes, etc., is basically bogus and you can get the same results w/ your standard set/rep scheme over time (e.g., non-periodized training). That's interesting to someone like me, who's been worrying about how to periodize, arrange sets/reps, etc. Anyway, it's long but one helluva read. At the very least, it really shows you how scientific studies and conclusions can really go astray. I thought that might be helpful b/c there seems to be some threads lately of people fretting over how to do things, worrying about details, etc. It covers damn near EVERY training variable -- volume, set duration, rep ranges, periodization, etc. Good read. Check it out.

Here's part of the conclusion from pgs 48-49:

The [ASCM] training protocols include the types of exercise (single and multiple joint), order of exercise, a specific percent of the 1 RM, repetition duration, range of repetitions, number of sets for each exercise, rest time between sets and exercises, frequency of training, and so-called periodization programs. The ACSM claims that the training protocols should vary for novice, intermediate and advanced trainees, and are dependent on specific goals such as enhanced muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance. If obsessive manipulation of these training variables really had a significant effect on specific outcomes, it would be evident in the preponderance of resistance-training studies. However, as we have specifically documented in each of the previous sections, there is very little scientific evidence to suggest that any particular program described in Table 1 (p. 374) of the Position Stand will elicit a specific adaptation such as increased muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance (Table 12).
Table 12. Summary of Resistance Training Research.
8 Studies cited in the Position Stand actually support the primary claim
or recommendation.
16 Studies cited in the Position Stand support the primary claim or
recommendation but contain serious flaws in the methodology or data.
59 Studies cited in the Position Stand fail to support the primary claim
or recommendation.
56 Studies not cited in the Position Stand repudiate the primary claim
or recommendation.
Because most advanced trainees would like to improve year round in all of the aforementioned variables (muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance), following the ACSM’s recommendations is not only a daunting task for most healthy adults, but also a deterrent for compliance even in the most dedicated trainees or for elite athletes who devote a great amount of time training for their specific sport. Many people would be forced to relinquish almost every other form of physical activity in order to achieve—according to the Position Stand—a hypothetical 10 % improvement. It appears that the intention of this Position Stand is to recommend what is required for trainees to determine how much exercise they can tolerate, rather than guiding people to establish the amount of exercise required to stimulate the desired adaptations that will improve health and enhance muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance.

 

[Madcow2]

You don't know much about IART do you? Tell me what other organization or training philosophy spends its time composing papers to rationalize its approach and try to discredit others? Why not just point to the obvious competitive success and say - well, we produce competitors of the same caliber and we go about it this way? If you sniff very carefully, you will uncover HIT and HIT guys have been at this since the 1970s. They are tenacious, dedicated, and biased to the point where truth and common sense can completely disappear at times in order to better promote some philosphical ideal that is more cult than training. The body of crap research in the field is massive and you can support any point you want (it is next to impossible to setup a properly controlled study with a group of fairly advanced athletes and those who did this best certainly didn't arrive at HIT or IART methodology to train their athletes - think Soviet and Eastern European). In the end it's helpful to look at the incidence of success. Take a look at the top 30 OL athletes in every weightclass since the 1970s to present - how many used or use HIT to train? Take at look at the same in PL - how many of those guys use it? Where is the success? I'm not saying HIT is evil or bad or horrible, but there's a reason they spend their time posting sensationalistic info to discredit others and that's because they don't have any verified competitive success to hold up. And I've seen some damn stupid stuff get people to the top through hard work and dedication - but for some reason that hasn't happened in their case.

So in research it really helps to understand the field and read everything with an unbiased eye to form your own opinion. Be especially leary of position papers that are designed to discredit or lend credit and cite a ton of info - a lot of times if you read the study it may not agree with the viewpoint. Read it all critically even if it agrees or disagrees with your own pet theory (ironically, many researchers tend to design studies with the inherent bias of proving their favorite ones).

In the case of IART and HIT, this is kind of like learning about world peace and religions through Al Queda or Hamas. I'm sure there are some very good bits to take away but never lose site of the fact that you are having a conversation with a person who's viewpoint is extremist, doesn't seem to fit the world peace mold, and that they have a vested interest in convincing you of something.

 

[Madcow2]

This was a fairly intuitive and entertaining insight into the HIT world if you haven't checked it out: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=7989488&postcount=805

 

[Protobuilder]

You don't know much about IART do you?

No. I don't. I've never heard of them, in fact. LoL Thanks for enlightening me. That's immediately what I thought when I read it--these guys have an axe to grind--but I didn't bother googling their names or institutions, etc. So, these are the HIT guys, then? OK. But reading through the paper, they do seem to pick apart a lot of the studies in a reasonable, accurate manner. For instance, they point out that in one of the studies on periodization, the group doing non-periodized training (12 weeks of 5x6) started out with 6 members but 5 quit the study (bored, presumably, LoL) so they only wound up w/ one member in that group, which makes it tough to reach conclusions. Etc.

Also, just so I know, are HITters against periodization? Because the position taken in this paper is that periodized training hasn't been proven more effective than linear training. Maybe they're right though [and I'm thinking of the SF 5x5 with its nearly 100% linear progression] . . .

 

[Jim Ouini]

Speaking of HIT, back in the day I was in the habit of picking up fitness books from B & N on occasion, and one day stumbled upon Maximize Your Training

So I thought, hey I want to maximize my training, saw some pretty well credentialed folks in the author list so I picked it up. Next thing I know it's a full on onslaught of HIT, chapter after chapter discrediting multi-set training and why the powerclean was a useless lift (the author spent about 1 paragraph just hand waving it away and then followed up with 'now that I've proven the powerclean is useless' lol)

 

[UrlMighty]

I've never understood the HIT fanaticism. They must be able to see that it's not a good method.

 

[Madcow2]

No. I don't. I've never heard of them, in fact. LoL Thanks for enlightening me. That's immediately what I thought when I read it--these guys have an axe to grind--but I didn't bother googling their names or institutions, etc. So, these are the HIT guys, then? OK. But reading through the paper, they do seem to pick apart a lot of the studies in a reasonable, accurate manner. For instance, they point out that in one of the studies on periodization, the group doing non-periodized training (12 weeks of 5x6) started out with 6 members but 5 quit the study (bored, presumably, LoL) so they only wound up w/ one member in that group, which makes it tough to reach conclusions. Etc.

Also, just so I know, are HITters against periodization? Because the position taken in this paper is that periodized training hasn't been proven more effective than linear training. Maybe they're right though [and I'm thinking of the SF 5x5 with its nearly 100% linear progression] . . .

Like I said, you need to read the whole study. You can pick a single part out of any study and bash it but what was really there? To be honest, getting published isn't exactly easy and it's a long process with referees who review and critisize long in advance of it ever appearing. You don't just throw some shit together, have your method be dumb and inconclusive, and get yourself in print. Granted there's tons of published garbage and even high quality works that contradict each other. Maybe as an exercise go track down that one study and read it (not just the abstract). Look at the process employed. Don't buy into the author's conclusions but take it all in. Look at the issues and what the results showed. Then read the IART's take on it again as well as the ACSM - I'm betting you won't ever trust anyone's interpretation again.

Actually, what was the paper specifically? I might be able to get a copy

EDIT - oh yeah, I answered your post at Meso. The study that had no gains to periodization you said held volume constant among the groups. The whole point of periodization is to handle more workload than can be handled linearly. Workload is the key, it's just taking advantage of the rate of dissipation of fatigue that allows higher workload. If workload is kept tolerable to all, it doesn't really matter much how it is schemed. That's the world's stupidest conclusion but the study is valuable in that it really shows the importance of workload rather than some specific split or timing. This is why periodization can be equally and even less effective if applied to a person who does not require increased work - the fatigue just gets in the way.

EDIT 2 - Here's the IART website, poke around a bit http://www.exercisecertification.com/. This is very much pro HIT and ignore or put down everything else. The IART approved selection of fitness and exercise books is very entertaining. It's funny, none of the books that most people the world over really believe to be the best published on training (Siff, Verk, Zat, etc..) are there while Jones and Mentzer are. I mean really, if you are unbiased or attempting to be you present everything - sort of like a textbook which is pretty much the feel you get in Science and Practice or Supertraining, but curiously - they are totally absent. i.e. an extremist group might well have some valuable info but you need to look very carefully before you leap.

Here's page 5 of Hartman's interview at the Core. He lists his top 10 books (the whole interview is good). How many of these appear on IART? A high percentage are on just about everyone's list around the world. http://readthecore.com/200510/hartman5.htm

 

[Madcow2]

Also, just so I know, are HITters against periodization? Because the position taken in this paper is that periodized training hasn't been proven more effective than linear training. Maybe they're right though [and I'm thinking of the SF 5x5 with its nearly 100% linear progression] . . .

By the way - I'm burned out on HIT from discussions on another forum so this is why I'm being complete.

I would not be surprised at all to see periodized HIT based programs. It makes a ton of sense to me. That said, they have yet to go that way and their view tends to be HIT vs. "HVT" where HVT is all other training at any level for any purpose that isn't what they term HIT (fyi HVT = High Volume Training). Basically HVT is rest of world - but sometimes rest of world might look a lot like HIT, other times not. I have no idea why someone would chain themselves to a particular mix of programing variables. Why not give yourself access to the entire array of tools.

I don't understand it and those people tend to wierd me out. But like I said, HIT has been around for a long time and a lot of people have used it - where are the medal winners and champions over the years. Lots of stupid training methods have gotten guys to the top - why not HIT? Don't tell me the Redskins used it or Penn State uses it and they have 2 national championships since the 80s (Miami has a lot more and the multiple others with 2 don't use HIT). Actually I believe it was an IART document and Matt Brzycki who was using this somewhat misleading "Penn State has 2 Championships - how many teams have more" agument - this was the same doc that claimed FSU as a HIT school and I know beyond any doubt that it is not and this was not the only error presented. There is a lot more to football than strength and gym lifts - you cannot ruin a great athlete with any reasonable resistance program. Show me the results in a contested field that's all about resistance exercise efficacy. And believe me, if they were out there HIT would damn well make sure we all knew about them.

 

[Protobuilder]

Don't buy into the author's conclusions but take it all in. Look at the issues and what the results showed. Then read the IART's take on it again as well as the ACSM - I'm betting you won't ever trust anyone's interpretation again.

Good points. The biggest thing I took away from the IART paper is that maybe the ACSM cherry-picked studies to support its position paper. Shocking! LoL For instance, the paper points out that the ACSM position paper sidestepped the Ostrowski study (see pg. 15; study #51 in the footnotes) which contradicted Kraemer's conclusion that periodized training is *better*.

Actually, what was the paper specifically? I might be able to get a copy

Study #123 in the FNs: Stone MH, Potteiger JA, Pierce KC, Proulx CM, O’Bryant HS, Johnson TL, et al. Comparison of the effects of three different weight-training programs on the one repetition maximum squat. J Strength Cond Res 2000; 14: 332-7. Here's the paper's use of the Stone study:

Stone et al. (123) randomly assigned 21 college-age males to either a traditional program or one of two varied multiple-set resistance-training programs. Previous resistance-training experience was not reported. The squat was executed 2x/wk for 5 x 6 RM in group 1, and 2x/wk for 5 x 10 RM, 5 x 5 RM, 3 x 3 RM (wk 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, respectively) in group 2. Group 3 performed 3-5 sets of 3-5 repetitions (RM on Monday, 15 % below RM on Friday) that varied eight times during the 12-week study. There was a significant increase in 1 RM squat for group 2 (15 %) and group 3 (15.4 %), but the change (10 %) for group 1 (n = 1) was not significant. Stone et al. (123) claimed that periodization resistance-training programs produce superior results compared with constant-repetition programs. However, no between-group statistical comparisons were reported. Stone et al. (123) noted that four out of the five subjects in group 1 were removed from the study because they complained of monotony or lack of variation, leaving only one subject in group 1 for evaluation; a dropout rate (80 %) unlike any other resistance-training study cited in this document. The evaluation of only one subject seriously limits any practical application of this study (123).

If you just looked at the Stone study (which I haven't in its entirety), you'd conclude that a linear program like the SF 5x5 (basically what Group 1 did) is inferior to Group 3's varied training program (e.g., 2 weeks of 10 reps, then 2 weeks of 5 reps, etc., so varying the intensity up and down for 12 weeks). Which is why you've seen me asking so many damned questions lately. LoL

EDIT - oh yeah, I answered your post at Meso.

You sure did and I appreciate your patience.

 

[Madcow2]

I pulled the abstract - I'd really read the study. I'm not sure what they are saying is true. If everyone dropped out and n=1, for group 1, it would be rediculous to make any comparisons - and everyone knows that. There must be something more there or some point of interim results or something. You don't seek significance or conclusions for n=1. It's pointless on something like this. Not saying they are wrong but it doesn't make sense and is not presented as n=1 in the abstract or alluded to. Meaning, somehow he got numbers and got published so there is something somewhat conclusive that other people at least passed off on as not utter rubbish.

Maybe I can get a copy. I couldn't locate one on the web sadly. If anyone is a member, it would be real cool: http://nsca.allenpress.com/nscaonli....1519/1533-4287(2000)014<0332:COTEOT>2.0.CO;2

This study compares the effects of 3 weight-training programs on the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat (SQ). Subjects were 21 college-age men. The criteria for subject inclusion was initial 1RM >110 kg and >1.3 × body mass and the ability to complete >80% of the programmed repetitions. The groups were Group 1 (n = 5) 5 × 6RM, Group 2 (n = 9) stepwise periodized model, and Group 3 (n = 7) overreaching periodized model. Groups 1 and 2 were equalized on programmed repetitions (720 and 732), and Group 3 was programmed at 18 and 19.4% fewer repetitions (590). Actual repetitions achieved for Groups 1–3 were 619, 629, and 529, respectively. The 1RM squat was measured before and after 12 weeks. Within-group analysis showed that only Groups 2 and 3 increased significantly (p < 0.05) in the 1RM (kg ± SD): Group 1, 141.4 ± 28.1–155.4 ± 23.7; Group 2, 124.8 ± 12.0–143.4 ± 12.1; and Group 3, 132.8 ± 17.0–153.3 ± 19.3. Derived variables were squat (SQ) × body mass−1 and SQ gain score × Sinclair coefficient (the method of obviating differences in body mass). Percent differences between groups for Groups 1 and 2 were SQ = 33, SQ × body mass = 53, and Sinclair formula = 33. For Group 3, SQ = 46, SQ × body mass = 67, and Sinclair formula = 109. These data indicate that periodized models increased the 1RM squat to a greater extent than a constant repetition scheme, even when the repetitions were equalized (Group 1 vs. Group 2) or when the repetitions were substantially fewer (Group 1 vs. Group 3).

 

[Maks]

randomly assigned 21 college-age males to either a traditional program or one of two varied multiple-set resistance-training programs.

Lol ... what ? Sorry for dropping in - i really didnt read studies for exercise training so far, but - the numbers of people involved is rediculous. 3 groups of 7 people - even if noone drops out thats too little. By far. You cant do any reliable statistics with that. It is not possible.
OK, some people claim that they developed tests for groups of 6, but those are not generally approved. At the most, you can do suggestions from that. Not evidence. At all.
Statistics BEGIN to make some sense from around 30 people per group, depending on the power of the study. If you really want to prove something, think hundreds, and, if the differences are small, maybe thousands of people.

 

[Madcow2]

Lol ... what ? Sorry for dropping in - i really didnt read studies for exercise training so far, but - the numbers of people involved is rediculous. 3 groups of 7 people - even if noone drops out thats too little. By far. You cant do any reliable statistics with that. It is not possible.
OK, some people claim that they developed tests for groups of 6, but those are not generally approved. At the most, you can do suggestions from that. Not evidence. At all.
Statistics BEGIN to make some sense from around 30 people per group, depending on the power of the study. If you really want to prove something, think hundreds, and, if the differences are small, maybe thousands of people.

To be honest, this is one of the reasons why research is so screwed in this field. It's just too hard to get people willing to do it and control variables. This becomes even more difficult when trying to get a sample of high level athletes. This is kind of why the Soviet research is valuable. This was the best and most controlled setting for studying athletes with very significant weight training experience. This is why there's so much garbage stuff floating around and nothing conclusive (you can find junk studies and shaky stats to support anything - just pick and choose). Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of it. That said, what did the soviets conclude and use with their athletes? What is being used around the world at the highest levels today - much bigger sample and fairly unbiased. You don't find HIT there and I imagine the difference would be significantly below the incidence of finding HIT in use in the general weighttraining population worldwide - that's kind of what tells me there's a major problem getting to elite levels under that methodology because lots of guys have made it there doing what many consider suboptimal training but for some reason no one has done it with HIT.

 

[Protobuilder]

Taking a step back, the whole reason I even went down this road is b/c I'm trying to understand this crap and make sure I'm doing everything I can to progress as fast as naturally possible. Maybe I'm just confused on terminology or something. LoL I understand that the body understands work, and through work, you force adaptations. The whole thing about periodization and all the monkey-ass programs on the web are all about how to load the body in different ways -- 10 sets of 3, or 3 sets of 10, 5 sets of 5, hypertrophy phase-strength phase-power phase, etc. And it doesn't seem to make much differnce how you load the body, so long as you're doing enough work to force adaptation.

But then I come across statements such as this:

Most comparative studies have demonstrated the superiority of periodized over non-periodized programs in terms of greater changes in strength, body composition, and motor performance (Fleck 1999). . . . When summarized, these studies demonstrate that even over a relatively short period of time (the length of a mesocycle), significantly greater improvements can be realized using systematic variation in training volume and intensity compared to linear programs using constant sets and reps (i.e., 3 sets of 10 repetitions).

http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/periodization.html

So then I ask myself: "Self, would you see even better results if instead of following the single-factor 5x5 linear loading pattern, you did some kind of wave-loading, or conjugate periodization, etc?" That's where I got off into the Stone study etc. showing Group 3 making the best results by following a varied loadig pattern. And, of course, the conclusion from that study was that the linear loading protocol of 5x6 for 12 weeks had the worst results. . . . .Got me thinking, OK, I need to change my loading pattern to get the best results. But THEN, the damn IART paper blew that study all to hell and said that linear loading is just fine. So I was happy again with my 5 sets of 5. LoL You see where I'm going here?

I know work is work. But there seems to be a lot of people saying you've got to vary how you load the body to see the best results. Maybe I'm just confused about something. Or about a lot of things. LoL

I guess it boils down to "what's the best way to arrange work?"

*edit* I'm still researching this crap. LoL Found the following from Fortified Iron (and it's been linked here before I believe so it's nothing new):

Although there are many ways to manipulate loading (linear, undulating aka. periodized just to name a few . . . ) as of research currently available there is little to disprove or prove if any loading progression scheme is of any more benefit than another. This is one area of research that is truly lacking.

This helps me sleep easier. LoL

 

[Topside]

One of the authors in that study Robert Otto was my exercise physiology professor at Adelphi University. He is an amazingly intelligent individual. We have discussed the whole HIT thing in class many times and everyone in the class was skeptical about it. Bob as we called him in class explained that the body basically works as a whole unit and full body workouts doing one set per body part to MMF (momentary muscular fatigue) WAS JUST AS EFFECTIVE as doing periodized routines. Basically he is speaking for the general population when he stated that training HIT style one set per body part is more time effective as doing one set per body part has you doing a workout that consists of 8-12 exercises that can be done in under a half hour keeping the intensity extremely high. He also stated in class that whatever way you prefer to train, train that way because whatever you enjoy in your life and if you are getting the results you desire then just keep doing what you are doing, by all means. I may be getting slightly defensive in a way bc Bob is a great guy, extremely intelligent like i said. Sorry if i am coming off in that manner, we're just having a friendly conversation.

Also, Madcow you are a big advocater of 5x5 much like Bill Starr. In his book The Strong Shall Survive Strenght Training for Football Bill Starr trained his athletes in a high intensity type of manner. He had his athletes start out with a particular exercise one of the big three, Squats, Power Clean and Bench. He would have them do 5 sets of 5 however they would do it in a circuit fashion, basically the same type of fashion that Bob explained keeping the intensity relatively high. So Starr's athletes would do a set of squats, benching and cleans, then return back to squats and go thru that 5 times. He did this to save time as he had to train a lot of athletes. So the only difference bw Bob and Bill is that Bill was doing full body works with 5 sets of 5 doing 3 exericses and Bob also does full Body workouts doing one set to MMF. I have done both work outs and have seen similarities with how my body responded to the type of stimulus. However if i had to pick the one i prefer i would say Bob style best suits me and i have actually gained more LBM with the same diet doing Bob's style as opposed to Bill's.

 

[Madcow2]

The heart of it is progress. If what you are doing is working and moving you at a good clip, you keep doing it. It could be HIT, it could be 5x5, it could be M&F Super Blaster, if it is letting you add weight to the bar in big exercises with consistency - that's the key.

When something stops working you make a change in some parameter - probably better not to turn over the whole program or move a far distance from your main goal (like most people do). Extreme examples being don't start training for 25 rep max suddenly because your 5RM is stalled, you'll certainly get better at 25 reps but carry over to 5 reps might be painfully bad or leave you with regression depending on your level of proficiency. Likewise be very careful about swapping core lifts. A sprinter stalled in his 100m time doesn't drop the 100m and swap it for the 5K and distance backstroke.

The real issue is what to do when you can't put together stretches of linear gains anymore on any training program without losing specificity and training something that doesn't carryover and help the goal. At that point programing gets a bit more fancy and becomes more important. That said, generally it comes down to wanting it and hard work. A lot of people have succeeded in spite of their training.

 

[Topside]

definitely agree with you on that madcow.

 

[casualbb]

guys

The article is (and i checked this) published by the _journal of exercis physiology_. You don't really argue with that

it may be posted by the IART idiots (and they are.) but here's a link to it off JEP's website: http://www.asep.org/jeponline/issue/2004_06_JEP.php
it's the second article

 

[casualbb]

oh and another thing:
I've been certified in the personal training industry, and these ACSM-like exercise recommendations are everywhere. i dont know who came up with this stuff, but i think they do it on purpose to over-complicate training and make you keep using their PT.

 

[Madcow2]

guys

The article is (and i checked this) published by the _journal of exercis physiology_. You don't really argue with that

it may be posted by the IART idiots (and they are.) but here's a link to it off JEP's website: http://www.asep.org/jeponline/issue/2004_06_JEP.php
it's the second article

Just because something is published in a journal doesn't mean it's good or right. There are so many contradictory studies out there it's rediculous - and just generally irrelevant or poor studies extrapolated to support someone's viewpoints are common (this is in every field). And this goes both ways, it's not just one side that's guilty of it. That's why I'm not a fan of citing research or refering to some abstract. You have to read the entire paper critically and then to really to put it in context you should have read much of what else is out there on the topic as well as have a very solid grasp of it. You don't take an author's conclusion at face value, you don't accept their method as without fault, and above all you definitely don't take their view on another study without reading it (and for whatever reason exercise science seems to be really bad on this one and people pick and choose one liners and take them totally out of context). Basically, people do the studies they want to do, write what they want to write, and unfortunately there's a level of bias there.

This is why I said to read the original study to see if there was really this n=1 issue and whether there were controls or whether it came out as material. It seems odd, I'd have trouble believing something like that got published without having to be redone. So if you read the original study and find out that the author of the paper was taking something and totally warping it to make it sensationalistic to support his own point (not mild extrapolation but real twisting) - that's a rather strong indication of heavy bias (and this kind of anti-position paper theme reeks of heavy bias anyway but a lot of it is going to be accurate because there's so much to support both sides and just a general plethora of probable irrelevant or bad work).

So just because someone used it in a journal doesn't mean it's good or credible or right, likewise it doesn't mean it's horrible or wrong if it doesn't agree with a popular viewpoint. This is why you read a lot and read very critically.

 

[Protobuilder]

All true. ^^ I think Casualbb is just pointing out that there's a difference between IART liking the paper and hosting it versus IART actually creating the paper, with all the bias that would entail. IOW, just b/c the Fascists liked Stravinsky doesn't mean Stravinsky was a fascist. LoL

I do like the introductory part of the paper, where they point out that the burden is on ACSM to prove that science actually supports their position statement b/c they hold out their position statement as being the most supportable conclusions one can currently draw from the scientific research. Then, the article points out that the ACSM seems to have glossed over a large number of contradictory studies, and drawn conclusions that are only thinly-supported. I also found it humorous them pointing out that the ACSM position statement draws a lot on studies performed by Kraemer (?), and ignores studies to the contrary, and Kraemer just happened to be the main editor on the ACSM position statement process. LoL The question I have is "why"? Is it just dogma or what? Why does exercise science seem to be so skewed and bitterly fought over? I mean, it's as if they're proposing the earth revolves around the sun, and the other side wants to burn them at the stake for heresy. LoL I think CasualBB may be on to something by pointing toward the money trail . . . Why else would they fight so bitterly and act so "unscientific"?

 

[Madcow2]

Why does exercise science seem to be so skewed and bitterly fought over?

Not sure. It definitely has a weird taint to it. Probably because there is no 100% conclusive answer that is constantly repeatable and provable for all. It's a blend of art and science with the art being to use experience and knowledge of the specific trainee to make a decision on best applied science. That said, crazy shit works too. The body is very adaptable. Just too hard to control everything and really get a comprehensive study on trainees with very significant experience. But like I said, the closest they ever came was pretty much the Soviet body. And then there is real life empirical research, meaning what is it that people are doing to get to the top in a sport that directly tests the efficacy of strength training protocol. This is actually why I don't too much like to discuss individual training programs, 'anything' can work and you can get enough research together to support whatever 'anything' you want. But proof is in the pudding, at elite levels. An insignificant difference further down the field suddenly becomes night and day further up the food chain and the realm of 'anythings that can work' gets quite a bit narrower.

By the way, just to give you an idea. Even in empirical finance with a massive database on the financial markets and quality time series extending back to the 1960s to 1920s depending on what you are studying and how that affects your definition of quality, you get hotly debated conclusions. One is market efficiency vs. behavioral finance. Essentially that there is no opportunity for excess profit in the market vs. the market being composed of people who's behavior is emotional and irrational and thus if one can predict it, one can profit from it. This is the entire active vs. passive index investment business. Everyone knows how the numbers come out, yet they still draw very different conclusions and have their own little camps - they take shots at each other in their papers to some degree and whole papers have been published as a rebuttle to someone elses or even to pick appart their methodology.

It's really not just exercise science but there is definitely a cultish aspect there. In my head I go back to Arther Jones in the 1970s Western supercompensation side. This whole HIT thing came out about adaptation being driven by a need to do what one cannot currently do (i.e. the idea of failure). You have to recover from the inroads made in training and then supercompensate above that level. Tying to efficiency, you want to make the smallest inroad possible to still supercompensate, that way you can come back and do it again as frequently as possible. So you have stimulus - failure or inability to do something thereby triggering supercompensation. On the other side you have the response - repair and supercompensate. They wanted to mitigate the negatives and accentuate the positives. It makes a lot of sense that Mentzer would use steroids (the response side) and amphetamines (the stimulus side) to accentuate the process. It also followed that the more developed you become the more the body had to do to repair itself so frequency had to decrease.

Of course later on we figure out that there are two different things going on and that failure is really on the neural side and that work is really on the muscle side. Lends a whole new perspective to the usefulness and efficiency of low workload to failure. Now for a long time some parts of the HIT community had what was in my opinion a very 'hollier than thou' attitude that everyone else was suboptimal and didn't understand the truth. Of course they weren't exactly lighting the world up with performance and training either and a lot of people looked at it as just so much talk (but they were convincing and many tried it with a wide array of results - mine were not so good). So anyway, when the whole thing starts to come into focus about the nature of fatigue and overtraining, I think that really rocked the HIT community a bit and they've been fragmented and just trying to reorganize or get something back together around the low volume idea which may or may not involve failure in the end (and as long as the fatigue never rises too high, it's a non-issue). I honestly don't know where they are going. It seems a lot still favor low frequency and low volume for advanced trainees and there seems to be zero emphasis on taking advantage of the dual factor model (even though they generally use 3x per week frequency for beginners so there is a more is better at that level). They will also take a week or so off if they plateau. I just think that maybe they are in a tough spot and have trouble letting go to the very particular mix of variables that they held so tightly to. On top of that, they've been at this a long time and still are not producing elite strength athletes so it's a tougher sale and given the history and the way many sort of held themselves up as the epitome of logic and science, there are some issues.

In the end, it's about training. Certain mixed of variables might work well or be prefered. I'm certainly not anti any of them but neither am I wedding myself to one and holding it up as best or seeking identity with it. A low volume, low frequency, train to failure approach can be very good - I certainly wouldn't do it all the time and I think it can really be timed well for effectiveness (i.e. welcome to deloading/peaking/or just a change to push up top weights). That's just my opinion though which is basically - pro training which encompasses all variables not just one corner. The main thing IMO that has hurt HIT is some of the more vocal people and their know it all attitudes (especially when they turned about to be mistaken and not have the whole picture).

 

[casualbb]

protobuilder is right in what i was trying to get across: you can't fault the paper for any IART association, because it's actually from the fairly prestigious JEP

However, I googled the original ACSM position stand paper, and found that it was published in the Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise (Med Sci Sport Exerc.) Journal, another heavy hitter.

they're not both right, so it sounds like we can't rely on the editing process of major journals to filter out crappy exercise info.

 

[Madcow2]

they're not both right, so it sounds like we can't rely on the editing process of major journals to filter out crappy exercise info.

Like magazines they are there to fill the issue. They present research and don't pass judgement on it or the conclusions of the authors. Every journal has a group of referees that evaluate the submission and either turn it away, accept, or offer suggestions on improvement (and the submission process is rarely quick and painless). One may not agree with an author or his conclusion but as long is it's reasonable, they believe people will be interested, and there's no major glaring issue or omission - it can get in there. No one has all the answers. There's a lot of schools and everyone has their favorite methods. And maybe certain journals lean a certain way as most times they are produced by an organization i.e. Journal of Strength and Conditioning is NSCA. It's next to impossible to conclusively prove one option better than another and I think most people have realized it's pointless to argue about (although for whatever reason many Jr. hitters don't seem to grasp the whole fatigue/failure thing and that a balance is inherent to their program design but that's not really arguing over a program working or not, that's just explaining something that is well accepted accross the field by all parties but is not widely known among recreational lifters).

This isn't limited to a handful of journals or just exercise science - this is the nature of research in many fields, there's just no saying XYZ is right because it was in the journal of ABC. Believe me, I've spent enough time digging through journals, reading points, counter points, highly questionable conclusions, methods open to substantial critisism, some very self interested/motivated research, loose extrapolations, etc... and even from the most prominent in a given field. People are attached to their ideas and beliefs and it is very hard to remain unbiased even for someone who understands this and really tries. Just human nature but eventually scientific method generally produces something, the question is - what will it take to conclusively prove something and are people willing to commit to this. In my mind, I don't see this happening anytime soon so don't hold your breath - I'd honestly be surprised if there was ever enough funding or demand to get enough people to do this under controlled circumstances for a long enough time. If I don't see it in my lifetime I won't be surprised.