Why are there so many conflicting bodybuilding techniques?

External Since: Jul 04, 2007 Posts: 3

Hi All,

While doing remedial research on bodybuilding routines/splits etc, I
found that there are so many contradictory statements. You would
imagine bodybuilding is not a theoretical abstraction, like string
theory or relativistic thermodynamics.

There are theories that say, no range of motion (static loading), full
range of motion. Train once a week, twice a week, twice a day. Always
go to failure, never go to failure. Go for the pump, pump is not
important. Two sets per muscle, 4 sets per muscle.

I guess there are probably two simple explanations? It all works to
some extent, given effort and eating. In addition, people's body are
different and respond to different stimuli.

I guess the confusion comes from the fact that bodybuilding (weight
training) is readily accessible so everyone is an "expert".

But there should be some universal quantifiable (non abstract)
theorems. What are they?
Let me start with one that I **Think** is true,

A person going to failure will grow faster than a person not going to
failure.
It is better to train three days a week (1 hour a day) than one day a
week for three hours.
In the long run, full range of motion will be better than static
loading.
In the long run, a person reaching pump will grow faster than a person
never reaching pump???

Anyways just venting my frustration...maybe I should read scientific
literature on this subject.

External Since: Jul 05, 2007 Posts: 72

On Jul 22, 2:48 pm, fivefourteen <artyspo....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> While doing remedial research on bodybuilding routines/splits etc, I
> found that there are so many contradictory statements. You would
> imagine bodybuilding is not a theoretical abstraction, like string
> theory or relativistic thermodynamics.

Actually, precisely because it cannot be thoroughly theorized yet is
why you see the manifold phenomena that confuses most everyone.

Insofar as it is a physical art, like dance, there are many different
ways of doing it, of being it, of expressing it.

As well, insofar as there are different genetics and potentials, there
are different theories and techniques better suited to each one.

Mainly, medical science and research is focused on the catastrophic,
the acute -- bodybuilding and even fitness in general receives very
little attention by comparison, for obvious reasons, so we're still at
the infancy of our understanding.

> There are theories that say, no range of motion (static loading), full
> range of motion. Train once a week, twice a week, twice a day. Always
> go to failure, never go to failure. Go for the pump, pump is not
> important. Two sets per muscle, 4 sets per muscle.

Indeed. Look at something like acupuncture -- been around for
thousands of years, and has helped many, though research is still only
just beginning on it.

Part of the problem lies in defining the problem: just what are you
looking to test for? Etc.

> I guess there are probably two simple explanations? It all works to
> some extent, given effort and eating. In addition, people's body are
> different and respond to different stimuli.

Something like that.

> I guess the confusion comes from the fact that bodybuilding (weight
> training) is readily accessible so everyone is an "expert".

Just like politics -- which is why there's so much of that around
here. ^_^

> But there should be some universal quantifiable (non abstract)
> theorems. What are they?
> Let me start with one that I **Think** is true,
>
> A person going to failure will grow faster than a person not going to
> failure.

Hard to say. Perhaps "failure" causes injuries that take longer to
heal? Not even catastrophic injuries, mind you, but the kind that
cause, say, a feeling of chronic fatigue or ill-ease. And, though I
like the psychological feeling of having exhausted myself 100% (by
which condition I mean "failure") I can imagine how for some that's
actually discouraging, to feel so drained, which in turn could lead to
slower progress insofar as that person works out only once a week, say
(which is, actually, that HIT stuff promoted by Mentzer and
Ellington).

> It is better to train three days a week (1 hour a day) than one day a
> week for three hours.

I've done most such schemes, from 4-5 hours per session to 1-3 per
session, 3-5 times per week, and they all seem to work. I think it
just boils down to personal preference -- psychological factors.

> In the long run, full range of motion will be better than static
> loading.

Depends -- some full ROM advice has some chiropractors and orthopedic
surgeons cringe.

> In the long run, a person reaching pump will grow faster than a person
> never reaching pump???

Hard to say. It certainly feels good.

> Anyways just venting my frustration...maybe I should read scientific
> literature on this subject.

It's almost as bad as trying to account for the weather -- and we know
even less!