6'8 NFL player before and after
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"] Its called muscle memory, he is right.Ninja-Hippo
"Muscle memory" generally referrs to neurogenic adaptation and the motor learning that goes on in the brain. I.e a musician's muscle memory will increase when practicing a lot with specific instruments.
I'm not saying he's wrong, just he throws a lot of things around without much reference or citation.
Muscle memory applies to weight lifting, particular with compound lifts. Unlike endurance exercise, whereby you might get your 1-mile run time to a record time and then stop training for a year and find that it's right back to where it was when you first started and you have to train to reach that personal record from the very beginning. Weight lifting is different. The first several months of lifting, when you think you're getting stronger (and technically you are), you aren't. Those first few months are adaptations of the central nervous system to make better, more efficient use of the muscles you already have before additional muscle mass is created. Being able to 'flex' your bicep for example, when you couldn't before, is the result of improved nervous system performance, not a bigger muscle. When you cease training your muscle mass may atrophy and you'll lose some poundage, but when you start up again you can start very close to the point you left off at and very quickly find yourself lifting as heavy as you used to. The mass that you lost also returns vastly more rapidly than it took to build it originally. Muscle memory.I think you are missing the point here a little. You and I are describing the same neurological adaptations that occur in the body under training in that first paragraph. I may have had a poor initial explanation of muscle memory or motor learning, but running/lifting economy are learned skills (motor learning) that last for a long period of time. Is it not unreasonable to think part of the quick adaptation to a new lifting regimen is based on a higher effeiciency of lifting (better balance, control or other measures, steming from the motor learning), and not due to neurological adaptations (by this I'm referring to motor unit recruitment unltimately resulting in a larger muscle recruitment). I'm fairly sure neurological adaptations diminish over time, but the motor learning in the brain is maintained for years/lifetime.
I have not seen any evidence that supports someone who was lifting consistently, stops lifting, and then picks it back up and has a faster muscle hypertrophy response than previously. The body will still need to go through the neurologic adaptations before muscle size growth. I'm not saying it's not possible, but you and others are providing no evidence to support it, meaning it does not seem to be grounded in science from my point of view, which is why I am asking for references.
[QUOTE="no-scope-AK47"]He was younger in the 1st pic and did not have his man powah yet. Also he is getting better coaching and training now that he is a pro. His diet most likely improved as well being rich can do that. Dude, he's on roids. General X is absolutely right. In order to get in the NFL he had to be in his best possible shape. To survive in the NFL you need a little something extra.[QUOTE="General_X"]One would have to assume that he was already on a rigerous diet and training regimen before he was in the NFL, the fact that he's pretty much doubled in width in less than 3 whole years makes think you give a little too much credit to diet and exercise. The body has a limit to the muscle it can pack on naturally and the bigger you get the less return you get from diet and exercise.lo_Pine
you do realize that the NFL, unlike the MLB (of old, at least), is extremely anti-steroid and does strict testing? This guy is problably targeted outright by officials due to his size and enormous gains.
Is it possible he took steroids? Of course, but it is not likely given the repercussions and likelihood of getting caught.
The guy just has the proper natural characteristics, profession, and motivation to get huge. Shrink him down to an average height of about 5'10'' and we wouldnt be having this conversation, he'd just be another workout buff.
Muscle memory applies to weight lifting, particular with compound lifts. Unlike endurance exercise, whereby you might get your 1-mile run time to a record time and then stop training for a year and find that it's right back to where it was when you first started and you have to train to reach that personal record from the very beginning. Weight lifting is different. The first several months of lifting, when you think you're getting stronger (and technically you are), you aren't. Those first few months are adaptations of the central nervous system to make better, more efficient use of the muscles you already have before additional muscle mass is created. Being able to 'flex' your bicep for example, when you couldn't before, is the result of improved nervous system performance, not a bigger muscle. When you cease training your muscle mass may atrophy and you'll lose some poundage, but when you start up again you can start very close to the point you left off at and very quickly find yourself lifting as heavy as you used to. The mass that you lost also returns vastly more rapidly than it took to build it originally. Muscle memory.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]
"Muscle memory" generally referrs to neurogenic adaptation and the motor learning that goes on in the brain. I.e a musician's muscle memory will increase when practicing a lot with specific instruments.
I'm not saying he's wrong, just he throws a lot of things around without much reference or citation.
Zlurodirom
I think you are missing the point here a little. You and I are describing the same neurological adaptations that occur in the body under training in that first paragraph. I may have had a poor initial explanation of muscle memory or motor learning, but running/lifting economy are learned skills (motor learning) that last for a long period of time. Is it not unreasonable to think part of the quick adaptation to a new lifting regimen is based on a higher effeiciency of lifting (better balance, control or other measures, steming from the motor learning), and not due to neurological adaptations (by this I'm referring to motor unit recruitment unltimately resulting in a larger muscle recruitment). I'm fairly sure neurological adaptations diminish over time, but the motor learning in the brain is maintained for years/lifetime.
I have not seen any evidence that supports someone who was lifting consistently, stops lifting, and then picks it back up and has a faster muscle hypertrophy response than previously. The body will still need to go through the neurologic adaptations before muscle size growth. I'm not saying it's not possible, but you and others are providing no evidence to support it, meaning it does not seem to be grounded in science from my point of view, which is why I am asking for references.
There is no money in that type of research. People want to lose fat and put on muscle so that is where all the papers come from. Pretty much everybody knows about muscle memory in any gym.
You can't die from Testosterone, and we let people smoke like a chimney and drink like a fish everyday.[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]
Because it's an unfair advantage!!
A slightly more legitimate argument is PEDs can cause health problems.
Zlurodirom
That's why I said "slightly more legtitimate". That first part was obviously sarcasm, right? Was that not obvious?
Ever heard of elevated levels of testosterone linked to prostate cancer? Might want to check that out before you start suggesting testosterone cream or whatever way you think it's safe to increase testosterone via supplements..
Remember when we had prohibition? Don't think taking away alcohol in the present would turn out much different. Probably similar with cigarettes. Those industries have the money/power to keep their products legal and to continue production.
I can link mental retardation to tap water that doesn't mean tap water causes mental retardation.
We could take away tobacco if he wanted, he have the police power to do so, no one can pull an Al Capone in 2013.
http://www.zmescience.com/research/studies/fluoride-tap-water-lowers-iq-431434/
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/lead/en/
*I was always referring to Test ethanate. I have no clue what crams, gels are made of, and there's like 100+ different variants of test.
[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Muscle memory applies to weight lifting, particular with compound lifts. Unlike endurance exercise, whereby you might get your 1-mile run time to a record time and then stop training for a year and find that it's right back to where it was when you first started and you have to train to reach that personal record from the very beginning. Weight lifting is different. The first several months of lifting, when you think you're getting stronger (and technically you are), you aren't. Those first few months are adaptations of the central nervous system to make better, more efficient use of the muscles you already have before additional muscle mass is created. Being able to 'flex' your bicep for example, when you couldn't before, is the result of improved nervous system performance, not a bigger muscle. When you cease training your muscle mass may atrophy and you'll lose some poundage, but when you start up again you can start very close to the point you left off at and very quickly find yourself lifting as heavy as you used to. The mass that you lost also returns vastly more rapidly than it took to build it originally. Muscle memory.no-scope-AK47
I think you are missing the point here a little. You and I are describing the same neurological adaptations that occur in the body under training in that first paragraph. I may have had a poor initial explanation of muscle memory or motor learning, but running/lifting economy are learned skills (motor learning) that last for a long period of time. Is it not unreasonable to think part of the quick adaptation to a new lifting regimen is based on a higher effeiciency of lifting (better balance, control or other measures, steming from the motor learning), and not due to neurological adaptations (by this I'm referring to motor unit recruitment unltimately resulting in a larger muscle recruitment). I'm fairly sure neurological adaptations diminish over time, but the motor learning in the brain is maintained for years/lifetime.
I have not seen any evidence that supports someone who was lifting consistently, stops lifting, and then picks it back up and has a faster muscle hypertrophy response than previously. The body will still need to go through the neurologic adaptations before muscle size growth. I'm not saying it's not possible, but you and others are providing no evidence to support it, meaning it does not seem to be grounded in science from my point of view, which is why I am asking for references.
There is no money in that type of research. People want to lose fat and put on muscle so that is where all the papers come from. Pretty much everybody knows about muscle memory in any gym.Even if there isn't much money in the research, if it has such a strong following it's likely the research can be performed due to interest. The biggest hurdle would be designing a valid protocol. It's not exactly the pharmaceutical industry where money drives EVERYTHING, though it does play a strong role. I must be going to the wrong gyms because I have never heard of this aledged phenomenon.
[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]
[QUOTE="Fightingfan"] You can't die from Testosterone, and we let people smoke like a chimney and drink like a fish everyday. Fightingfan
That's why I said "slightly more legtitimate". That first part was obviously sarcasm, right? Was that not obvious?
Ever heard of elevated levels of testosterone linked to prostate cancer? Might want to check that out before you start suggesting testosterone cream or whatever way you think it's safe to increase testosterone via supplements..
Remember when we had prohibition? Don't think taking away alcohol in the present would turn out much different. Probably similar with cigarettes. Those industries have the money/power to keep their products legal and to continue production.
I can link mental retardation to tap water that doesn't mean tap water causes mental retardation.
We could take away tobacco if he wanted, he have the police power to do so, no one can pull an Al Capone in 2013.
http://www.zmescience.com/research/studies/fluoride-tap-water-lowers-iq-431434/
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/lead/en/
You are right correlation does not make causation. Flouride is a hard chemical to test because of the ethics involved, thus all the studies that use it are epidemiological.
I am not an expert on prostate cancer, but considering hormone therapy resulting in a decreased testosterone is a valid cancer treatment for prostate cancer, I would say it's a valid statement to say high testosterone can influence prostate cancer, wouldn't you agree?
The US has no reason to make tobacco products illegal (I'm going with the US here only, cant speak for other countries), the government probably makes a large sum from the tax and distribution of tobacco products, so it has no reason to ban it (afterall the US is a free country!).
Dude, he's on roids. General X is absolutely right. In order to get in the NFL he had to be in his best possible shape. To survive in the NFL you need a little something extra.[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="no-scope-AK47"]He was younger in the 1st pic and did not have his man powah yet. Also he is getting better coaching and training now that he is a pro. His diet most likely improved as well being rich can do that.
mrbojangles25
you do realize that the NFL, unlike the MLB (of old, at least), is extremely anti-steroid and does strict testing? This guy is problably targeted outright by officials due to his size and enormous gains.
Is it possible he took steroids? Of course, but it is not likely given the repercussions and likelihood of getting caught.
The guy just has the proper natural characteristics, profession, and motivation to get huge. Shrink him down to an average height of about 5'10'' and we wouldnt be having this conversation, he'd just be another workout buff.
lmfao. you have got to be kidding me. steroid use is extremely common in the NFL. the dude in the OP is on steroids, period.[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Muscle memory applies to weight lifting, particular with compound lifts. Unlike endurance exercise, whereby you might get your 1-mile run time to a record time and then stop training for a year and find that it's right back to where it was when you first started and you have to train to reach that personal record from the very beginning. Weight lifting is different. The first several months of lifting, when you think you're getting stronger (and technically you are), you aren't. Those first few months are adaptations of the central nervous system to make better, more efficient use of the muscles you already have before additional muscle mass is created. Being able to 'flex' your bicep for example, when you couldn't before, is the result of improved nervous system performance, not a bigger muscle. When you cease training your muscle mass may atrophy and you'll lose some poundage, but when you start up again you can start very close to the point you left off at and very quickly find yourself lifting as heavy as you used to. The mass that you lost also returns vastly more rapidly than it took to build it originally. Muscle memory.no-scope-AK47
I think you are missing the point here a little. You and I are describing the same neurological adaptations that occur in the body under training in that first paragraph. I may have had a poor initial explanation of muscle memory or motor learning, but running/lifting economy are learned skills (motor learning) that last for a long period of time. Is it not unreasonable to think part of the quick adaptation to a new lifting regimen is based on a higher effeiciency of lifting (better balance, control or other measures, steming from the motor learning), and not due to neurological adaptations (by this I'm referring to motor unit recruitment unltimately resulting in a larger muscle recruitment). I'm fairly sure neurological adaptations diminish over time, but the motor learning in the brain is maintained for years/lifetime.
I have not seen any evidence that supports someone who was lifting consistently, stops lifting, and then picks it back up and has a faster muscle hypertrophy response than previously. The body will still need to go through the neurologic adaptations before muscle size growth. I'm not saying it's not possible, but you and others are providing no evidence to support it, meaning it does not seem to be grounded in science from my point of view, which is why I am asking for references.
There is no money in that type of research. People want to lose fat and put on muscle so that is where all the papers come from. Pretty much everybody knows about muscle memory in any gym. Still waiting for that picture no scope.
It's anecdotal. Nobody is going to fund that kind of study. It'd have to be very long-term. It takes at least a year to get to a decent level of lifting, then they'd need to take an extended amount of time off, then start again. That's a long study. I can speak from experience; I was out from lifting for four months due to shoulder surgery and my legs in particular got a lot smaller from not squatting three times a week. My strength was back up to my old PR (which took nearly two years to reach) in less than two months, and I was back up to my previous weight within four.I have not seen any evidence that supports someone who was lifting consistently, stops lifting, and then picks it back up and has a faster muscle hypertrophy response than previously. The body will still need to go through the neurologic adaptations before muscle size growth. I'm not saying it's not possible, but you and others are providing no evidence to support it, meaning it does not seem to be grounded in science from my point of view, which is why I am asking for references.
Zlurodirom
[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]It's anecdotal. Nobody is going to fund that kind of study. It'd have to be very long-term. It takes at least a year to get to a decent level of lifting, then they'd need to take an extended amount of time off, then start again. That's a long study. I can speak from experience; I was out from lifting for four months due to shoulder surgery and my legs in particular got a lot smaller from not squatting three times a week. My strength was back up to my old PR (which took nearly two years to reach) in less than two months, and I was back up to my previous weight within four.
I have not seen any evidence that supports someone who was lifting consistently, stops lifting, and then picks it back up and has a faster muscle hypertrophy response than previously. The body will still need to go through the neurologic adaptations before muscle size growth. I'm not saying it's not possible, but you and others are providing no evidence to support it, meaning it does not seem to be grounded in science from my point of view, which is why I am asking for references.
Ninja-Hippo
Anecdotal evidence isn't always the best, and if someone wasn't properly monitoring what they were doing, it can muddle results. Lifting more weight at the beginning of a program will have an increased effect on muscle hypertrophy, something some people might not take into consideration. If someone stops and starts up and starts lifting this higher weight, how do we know it's not just the larger volume of weight being lifted making a difference, and not this "muscle memory"? Maybe the neurogenic adaptations occur faster, coupled with a motor learning process this could speed up strength increases, and with a strength increase, a volume increase, and the volume increase could result in a larger muscle mass quicker. Just thinking out-loud, but I don't see why this would be the reason, rather than this "muscle memory" claim.
I've read studies of standardizing training for a year, and then measuring the detraining effects on the body. All that would need to be different is adding in a training regimen at the end of the detraining period. I'm not saying it'd be easy, but it is possible, and it could be useful in accordance with cycling or during macrocycles if someone finished a competition season and needs more time off than just a couple weeks.
Volume in weight-lifting terms refers to the total amount of exercises done. So the volume would be the same, assuming you stick to the same lifting routine. What you're referring to is intensity; the amount of weight being lifted in each exercise. 'Muscle memory' has never been put up as a scientific term. It could be any number of reasons why you very quickly return to your former strength and muscle mass compared to how long it took to originally develop those attributes, 'muscle memory' is more of a coloquial term used to describe the phenomenon. I didn't think you were debating why it happens, I thought you were debating whether it happens at all.Anecdotal evidence isn't always the best, and if someone wasn't properly monitoring what they were doing, it can hamper results. Lifting more weight at the beginning of a program will have an increased effect on muscle hypertrophy, something some people might not take into consideration. If someone stops and starts up and starts lifting this higher weight, how do we know it's not just the larger volume of weight being lifted making a difference, and not this "muscle memory"? Maybe the neurogenic adaptations occur faster, coupled with a motor learning process this could speed up strength increases, and with a strength increase, a volume increase, and the volume increase could result in a larger muscle mass quicker. Just thinking out-loud, but I don't see why this would be the reason, rather than this "muscle memory" claim.
I've read studies of standardizing training for a year, and then measuring the detraining effects on the body. All that would need to be different is adding in a training regimen at the end of the detraining period. I'm not saying it'd be easy, but it is possible, and it could be useful in accordance with cycling or during macrocycles if someone finished a competition season and needs more time off than just a couple weeks.
Zlurodirom
Studies cost money and the people putting up the money want a return on their investment. Even if you were to apply for a reserch study grant it would have to beat out other request for limited funds. So it is highly unlikely that a long term study would be done just for couriosity. Many things in the fitness industry that we know to be true have little to no actual studies done on them. For example people told me about over training. They said I was doing too much. Well I put on 40 pounds of muscle with no juice. I just ate alot and got proper rest. I have talked to guys that got out of jail with 20 inch arms that worked out daily with no supplements. Guess what they never heard of over training either. You talk to the people that get results and you will get some real knowledge. I was doing ice baths and getting a massage to deal with my over training. I have no idea if there was a study done on that but it works. Alot of my training is done on instinct how my body feels and what I can see. I will do high calorie days on say leg/back day that goes against what they say you should do. Why because I see results in others and myself. IMO there is no magic study that works for everybdy. If there is a crossfit gym in your area go there and you will get tips that you may not find online. Even on steriods I have no need for them but I hear if you cycle there will be minimal negative side effects. I am sure there is a study that says steriods will do this and that. The truth is when you get sick or hurt badly the doc will put you on the evil steriods. All the stuff they call steriods are not they are PED's. The boxing commish has weed listed there how retarded is that. I never went in the ring and said damn I would be better lifted. So don't believe everything some study says. It is like game reviews I would rather get a rating from a friend than a stranger that is a "expert".Anecdotal evidence isn't always the best, and if someone wasn't properly monitoring what they were doing, it can muddle results. Lifting more weight at the beginning of a program will have an increased effect on muscle hypertrophy, something some people might not take into consideration. If someone stops and starts up and starts lifting this higher weight, how do we know it's not just the larger volume of weight being lifted making a difference, and not this "muscle memory"? Maybe the neurogenic adaptations occur faster, coupled with a motor learning process this could speed up strength increases, and with a strength increase, a volume increase, and the volume increase could result in a larger muscle mass quicker. Just thinking out-loud, but I don't see why this would be the reason, rather than this "muscle memory" claim.
I've read studies of standardizing training for a year, and then measuring the detraining effects on the body. All that would need to be different is adding in a training regimen at the end of the detraining period. I'm not saying it'd be easy, but it is possible, and it could be useful in accordance with cycling or during macrocycles if someone finished a competition season and needs more time off than just a couple weeks.
Zlurodirom
At the end of the day it is your results that count not what I or anybody else has done. So don't be afraid to experiment after all the people doing the extreme sports/lifts don't stick to the norm. I look up studies also but the control groups and time periods are usually very small. If you have a people that have been working out for 20 years I would take their word over a study. Almost anybody at the gym will help you most times if you ask.
[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]Volume in weight-lifting terms refers to the total amount of exercises done. So the volume would be the same, assuming you stick to the same lifting routine. What you're referring to is intensity; the amount of weight being lifted in each exercise. 'Muscle memory' has never been put up as a scientific term. It could be any number of reasons why you very quickly return to your former strength and muscle mass compared to how long it took to originally develop those attributes, 'muscle memory' is more of a coloquial term used to describe the phenomenon. I didn't think you were debating why it happens, I thought you were debating whether it happens at all.
Anecdotal evidence isn't always the best, and if someone wasn't properly monitoring what they were doing, it can hamper results. Lifting more weight at the beginning of a program will have an increased effect on muscle hypertrophy, something some people might not take into consideration. If someone stops and starts up and starts lifting this higher weight, how do we know it's not just the larger volume of weight being lifted making a difference, and not this "muscle memory"? Maybe the neurogenic adaptations occur faster, coupled with a motor learning process this could speed up strength increases, and with a strength increase, a volume increase, and the volume increase could result in a larger muscle mass quicker. Just thinking out-loud, but I don't see why this would be the reason, rather than this "muscle memory" claim.
I've read studies of standardizing training for a year, and then measuring the detraining effects on the body. All that would need to be different is adding in a training regimen at the end of the detraining period. I'm not saying it'd be easy, but it is possible, and it could be useful in accordance with cycling or during macrocycles if someone finished a competition season and needs more time off than just a couple weeks.
Ninja-Hippo
I'm fairely sure the NSCA consideres volume=overall weight being lifted, and intensity= %1RM. Which is how I am characterizing it. I am debating both the phenomenon itself, since I have never heard of it, and it's scientific credibility. I never said it was wrong, or impossible, just I have seen no scientific evidence of this claimed knowledge which is "known" by many gyms.
Studies cost money and the people putting up the money want a return on their investment. Even if you were to apply for a reserch study grant it would have to beat out other request for limited funds. So it is highly unlikely that a long term study would be done just for couriosity. Many things in the fitness industry that we know to be true have little to no actual studies done on them. For example people told me about over training. They said I was doing too much. Well I put on 40 pounds of muscle with no juice. I just ate alot and got proper rest. I have talked to guys that got out of jail with 20 inch arms that worked out daily with no supplements. Guess what they never heard of over training either. You talk to the people that get results and you will get some real knowledge. I was doing ice baths and getting a massage to deal with my over training. I have no idea if there was a study done on that but it works. Alot of my training is done on instinct how my body feels and what I can see. I will do high calorie days on say leg/back day that goes against what they say you should do. Why because I see results in others and myself. IMO there is no magic study that works for everybdy. If there is a crossfit gym in your area go there and you will get tips that you may not find online. Even on steriods I have no need for them but I hear if you cycle there will be minimal negative side effects. I am sure there is a study that says steriods will do this and that. The truth is when you get sick or hurt badly the doc will put you on the evil steriods. All the stuff they call steriods are not they are PED's. The boxing commish has weed listed there how retarded is that. I never went in the ring and said damn I would be better lifted. So don't believe everything some study says. It is like game reviews I would rather get a rating from a friend than a stranger that is a "expert".[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]
Anecdotal evidence isn't always the best, and if someone wasn't properly monitoring what they were doing, it can muddle results. Lifting more weight at the beginning of a program will have an increased effect on muscle hypertrophy, something some people might not take into consideration. If someone stops and starts up and starts lifting this higher weight, how do we know it's not just the larger volume of weight being lifted making a difference, and not this "muscle memory"? Maybe the neurogenic adaptations occur faster, coupled with a motor learning process this could speed up strength increases, and with a strength increase, a volume increase, and the volume increase could result in a larger muscle mass quicker. Just thinking out-loud, but I don't see why this would be the reason, rather than this "muscle memory" claim.
I've read studies of standardizing training for a year, and then measuring the detraining effects on the body. All that would need to be different is adding in a training regimen at the end of the detraining period. I'm not saying it'd be easy, but it is possible, and it could be useful in accordance with cycling or during macrocycles if someone finished a competition season and needs more time off than just a couple weeks.
no-scope-AK47
At the end of the day it is your results that count not what I or anybody else has done. So don't be afraid to experiment after all the people doing the extreme sports/lifts don't stick to the norm. I look up studies also but the control groups and time periods are usually very small. If you have a people that have been working out for 20 years I would take their word over a study. Almost anybody at the gym will help you most times if you ask.
I'm sure there are plenty of undergraduate/graduate/doctoral students who would happily investigate the "muscle memory" phenomenon. The cost to conduct a study like this would be minimal if performed at a university with a gym. Money is not everything, professors who want tenure have to churn out papers every year, a study like this could provide multiple publications as a novel concept. I would say the bigger problem is that science has not shown anything that would support this claim, and a researcher attempting to test it out would need a basis to support why the study is being supported in the first place, and not just anecdotal evidence. Just like you said, everyone IS different, overtraining for you may consist of a month of pushing your body to the limit before you start seeing the effects of overtraining, it may recover faster, while others may succumb to the effects in 2 weeks. A LOT of talk that goes on in gyms are myths or poorly thought out positions. Why would someone claim it's bad to increase caloric intake on leg days? That is a baseless opinion. People thinking steroids are completely bad are making baseless statements. Crossfit as a whole is not the best place for information. You need 1 weekend of training and a large amount of money, and you are accredited, I would trust a CSCS, or an ACE trainer any day of the week over crossfit. Because they tell you to do something different doesn't make it good.
The problem is the disconnect with science and those that apply it. e.g. People out there still think whey is better for building muscle than other proteins, when there is no evidence to support this. Everyone is a little different, but not this different, studies are normally designed for maximal external validity so it can apply to the general population. Studies are designed for the best control, larger populations make it harder to control the participants, and the longer the study is, the harder it is to keep participants on the same regimen. That is the limit to scientific investigation, but it is a much more sound process than some older guys lifting in the gym and their own personal experience. I would go with the current scientific stance on many topics versus what my friends say or recommend, physiology is much different than video games.
Talking about banned drugs isn't really on topic, but remember sports federations make up their own rules, or the governing federations (WADA, USADA, etc) enforce them.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment