Turn on thread page Beta

Ejaculating lowers strength/ power.. watch

    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by The Troll Toll)
    Most people who give advice use some form of evidence, but it's anecdotal because that's where all the good knowledge is.
    What a ridiculous comment! Its thinking like that that lead to bleeding being used as medicine for thousands of years.

    And whilst i was referring to TSR in general, there are hundreds, if not thousands of peer-reviewed primary papers that deal with fitness and performance. That is no excuse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    What a ridiculous comment! Its thinking like that that lead to bleeding being used as medicine for thousands of years.

    And whilst i was referring to TSR in general, there are hundreds, if not thousands of peer-reviewed primary papers that deal with fitness and performance. That is no excuse.
    Nah there really are very few papers that deal with stuff we want to talk about.

    Take the DE method for example, which has been around in essence since before Starr taught it to Rippetoe and certainly before WSB made it popular. Yet if I throw out a Pubmed search (which seems to cover at least some sports science journals) for it I get two results, both talking about some kind of electrode stimulus to the ****ing biceps tendon, thus:



    Do you really think that peer reviewed work is as valuable as the unpublished work Talmant (and I think Tuscherer) did with their tendo unit? Personally I think even that work had a few problems and was a bit of a damp squib given everything we already knew from less formal trials of the method but it was miles ahead of either of the above pieces of crap.

    Obviously that's just one example, but I can't be arsed to go through everything. Rippetoe gave a good example (can't remember where) when he said that everyone knows that 50mg dianabol is an effective dose for a weightlifter, but no research supports it. Not sure if that's true, surprising if it is since I thought Dbol was prescribed clinically. Either way...
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by The Troll Toll)
    Nah there really are very few papers that deal with stuff we want to talk about.

    Take the DE method for example, which has been around in essence since before Starr taught it to Rippetoe and certainly before WSB made it popular. Yet if I throw out a Pubmed search (which seems to cover at least some sports science journals) for it I get two results, both talking about some kind of electrode stimulus to the ****ing biceps tendon, thus:



    Do you really think that peer reviewed work is as valuable as the unpublished work Talmant (and I think Tuscherer) did with their tendo unit? Personally I think even that work had a few problems and was a bit of a damp squib given everything we already knew from less formal trials of the method but it was miles ahead of either of the above pieces of crap.

    Obviously that's just one example, but I can't be arsed to go through everything. Rippetoe gave a good example (can't remember where) when he said that everyone knows that 50mg dianabol is an effective dose for a weightlifter, but no research supports it. Not sure if that's true, surprising if it is since I thought Dbol was prescribed clinically. Either way...
    I have to admit this is hardly my area of expertise, and i'm sure a lot of knowledge has been passed down (some of it good, some of it not). I just don't see how you can think that is more effective than actually getting 20 guys, having a test and control group, and seeing what works. I don't know about this unpublished work you speak of, but if it is unpublished then how do you know it is valuable? (evidence is evidence if i can read it, even if it isn't 'peer-reviewed'. Unpublished on the other hand...) This obsession with 'formality' is unhealthy - it doesn't have to be guys in white coats doing the work - its just needing to perform an experiment and tell people what you did rather than 'x works for me, therefore it will work for you'.

    Take the 50mg dose thing (if you're accurate about what is known) - 'everyone knows' - no they don't! Maybe a couple of guys have found that 20mg didn't work for them, but that hardly means that for most people that will not work. The only way to tell definitively would be to get a group of guys and try different doses out. Anecdotal evidence leads to bad practices spreading.

    And yes, you did pick one area, and didn't exactly try hard to search for evidence. Perhaps there does need to be more research, but it doesn't mean there is none out there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    I have to admit this is hardly my area of expertise, and i'm sure a lot of knowledge has been passed down (some of it good, some of it not).
    This is patently obvious. Comparing this to blood letting is ridiculous for one obvious reason: blood letting doesn't work, whereas what we do does. Blood letting looks like it works because of regression to the mean, placebo, all that stuff. If you want to explain a gym full of 500 lb+ squatters with the same language you are most welcome. This section has needed a new comedian since SummerSofas left.

    I just don't see how you can think that is more effective than actually getting 20 guys, having a test and control group, and seeing what works. I don't know about this unpublished work you speak of, but if it is unpublished then how do you know it is valuable? (evidence is evidence if i can read it, even if it isn't 'peer-reviewed'. Unpublished on the other hand...) This obsession with 'formality' is unhealthy - it doesn't have to be guys in white coats doing the work - its just needing to perform an experiment and tell people what you did rather than 'x works for me, therefore it will work for you'.
    But that is essentially what we do anyway, we just don't codify it in that way or analyse it statistically. Most ideas advocated have been done by 10 or more people in the world, and the control group is everyone who doesn't work out. But something working better than that control group is not really very enlightening. In fact it's so pointless it even gets published in journals.

    Again your unjustified low opinion of us is shown in your last line. Nobody says that here. Literally nobody. A far more accurate description would be "x works for me, and it worked for me when I was in a similar position that you are in now. There is no way of telling if it will work for you no matter how many studies on other people we do, but it may be worth it to try it and see if it does." And there is nothing wrong with that.

    Take the 50mg dose thing (if you're accurate about what is known) - 'everyone knows' - no they don't! Maybe a couple of guys have found that 20mg didn't work for them, but that hardly means that for most people that will not work. The only way to tell definitively would be to get a group of guys and try different doses out.
    LOL if you think groups of guys have not tried out different doses of dbol :rofl:

    Anecdotal evidence leads to bad practices spreading.
    It doesn't really though. Optimal training only exists on an individual basis which means statistical significance is irrelevant anyway, so advice people gain is only designed to put them in a position from which they can move their own training towards an optimal position. And the advice most people give works for everyone for that purpose.

    And yes, you did pick one area, and didn't exactly try hard to search for evidence. Perhaps there does need to be more research, but it doesn't mean there is none out there.
    I would rather the research grants went to people doing actual important things, and we keep doing what works.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by The Troll Toll)
    This is patently obvious. Comparing this to blood letting is ridiculous for one obvious reason: blood letting doesn't work, whereas what we do does.
    But you don't know it works!!! Compared to a proper control group (i.e. people who use another method, not the completely inappropriate control group of 'people that don't work out'), maybe the method you use is not optimal.

    The only point you have in your favor is that for the persistent you can perform kind of 'self-experiments' to try to find out what works for each individual. However, i doubt these are done with anything like the kind of effort you need to put in to control other variables, i doubt they are kept going long enough to produce reliable results, and i bet they are highly biased.

    Take the subject of this thread. I posted some research. This may be flawed (and please feel free to tell me in what ways), but its a hell of a lot better than asking Joe from the gym, or TSRuser678, or whacking one out before going to the gym tomorrow to find that you don't feel like a work out.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by nexttime)
    But you don't know it works!!!
    Of course he knows it works. He deadlifts 250kg. If it didn't work, then he wouldn't.

    Compared to a proper control group (i.e. people who use another method, not the completely inappropriate control group of 'people that don't work out'), maybe the method you use is not optimal.
    There is no such thing as "optimal". There is optimal for certain things at certain times for certain people who have certain goals who have certain constraints (injuries, flexibility, recovery ability).

    The fact is that a control group will have significant genetic variance amongst its participants. There is only one Troll Toll and there is only one Smack. What works for someone in the control group might not work for Troll Toll or Smack.

    However, i doubt these are done with anything like the kind of effort you need to put in to control other variables
    That's because if you want to get strong, the effort should be put into lifting the weight, not writing studies for scientific journals.

    i doubt they are kept going long enough to produce reliable results
    That is because everything stops working at some point. Otherwise we'd all be lifting cars and ****. Obviously when something stops working people stop doing it as to not waste their time.

    and i bet they are highly biased
    And scientific studies with control groups never are?

    The fact is that in weights training the best and most valuable information is anecdotal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    But you don't know it works!!! Compared to a proper control group (i.e. people who use another method, not the completely inappropriate control group of 'people that don't work out'), maybe the method you use is not optimal.

    The only point you have in your favor is that for the persistent you can perform kind of 'self-experiments' to try to find out what works for each individual. However, i doubt these are done with anything like the kind of effort you need to put in to control other variables, i doubt they are kept going long enough to produce reliable results, and i bet they are highly biased.

    Take the subject of this thread. I posted some research. This may be flawed (and please feel free to tell me in what ways), but its a hell of a lot better than asking Joe from the gym, or TSRuser678, or whacking one out before going to the gym tomorrow to find that you don't feel like a work out.
    It's important to realise that Troll Toll does not mean the scientific method is useless for all things. But for training methodology, I just cannot seeing useful. Like he said, it's so individual, there are just too many factors involved. You wouldn't be able to blind it anyway. Reasons a method works are probably more down to how it fits in with the trainee than it is sets/reps etc. I lifter will get more out of it depending on how it fits in their daily/weekly schedule, their level of advancement/experience, their own biases, equipment, goals etc.

    What works for an novice may not work for an elite lifter, and vice versa.

    Masturbation and testosterone levels is a different concept. You still can't blind it though, and that's a problem. But you still can have a control and an objective measurable primary outcome. But another problem would be does that have any significance in application and practical use? Some sort of strength feat could be thrown in there too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    But you don't know it works!!! Compared to a proper control group (i.e. people who use another method, not the completely inappropriate control group of 'people that don't work out'), maybe the method you use is not optimal.
    Indeed, I would be surprised if the method I am using is completely optimal. I also contend that there is no plausible experimental design that could determine optimal training for every individual given infinite resources. Therefore we are left with the two options I will state below:

    The only point you have in your favor is that for the persistent you can perform kind of 'self-experiments' to try to find out what works for each individual. However, i doubt these are done with anything like the kind of effort you need to put in to control other variables, i doubt they are kept going long enough to produce reliable results, and i bet they are highly biased.
    It seems that essentially our disagreement can be distilled down to the following: you think the best way to train is to methodically isolate each variable (I can't decide whether this is impossible or would just take years-decades) to determine the optimal way to train, and then do that with the years you have left before turning decrepit. I on the other hand think the best way to train is to attempt something that should plausibly work and changing it based on subjective feedback of what works, judged on a less rigorous basis than would be acceptable in a scientific journal.

    If you really think that then I honestly can't help you.

    Take the subject of this thread. I posted some research. This may be flawed (and please feel free to tell me in what ways), but its a hell of a lot better than asking Joe from the gym, or TSRuser678, or whacking one out before going to the gym tomorrow to find that you don't feel like a work out.
    The subject of this thread was ****ing stupid from the outset.



    Also: everything Smack said.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There are countless number of very strong men and women who have got that way despite lack of scientific knowledge.

    The Chinese proverb "Talk doesn't cook rice" comes into play here.

    While there have been some studies applicable to sports and the like, the vast majority of information is anecdotal and taught from trial and error over the years - this trial and error has lead to a man being able to hoist over 1000lbs off the floor, another to hoist near 600lbs over his head.

    It is almost impossible to 'control' anything in relation to training science anyway due to resting patterns, diet, daily life, biomechanical advantage/disadvantage so no matter how much you want it, well, its not ever going to really happen.

    Much like modern physics a lot of what is done is simply an intelligent guesstimate based upon what has been shown anecdotally to work.
    The male silverback doesn’t know through scientific practice and study that it can twist the barrel of a revolver – but I have seen footage of one doing it.

    Research has its place in some fields, but when it comes to practically applied things trial and error by countless people will provide more reliable and quicker results than analysis.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by =gabriel=)
    It could be true, most pro sports teams don't let their lads mess around during important races/matches...
    I believe that that's more about not staying up late though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hmmm, today I jacked off before going to the gym and, after washing my hands, was able to do 2 reps on the axle clean and press. On Tuesday I only did one, but I had forgotten my wrist wraps and elbow sleeves so the extra gear whoring might have helped, although my elbow sleeves are pretty loose. Perhaps I didn't wash my hands as well as I should and my grip was helped by the extra stickiness. I also didn't train shoulders yesterday, whereas I did on Monday. But still, I got twice as strong in 3 days which is amazing since it's Friday (Friday) and I am tired because I've been up since 7am and all I've had to eat all day is a bowl of cereal. I would say these gains are sted like, especially since I did it on only half my usual dose of pro-plus (I never liked coffee, bracing myself for SMed's negs).

    I probably should have controlled all those variables but I didn't because I hate science :mfing:
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Ok - you guys have convinced me that in some cases there are too many variables to make generally applicable studies of limited use. This would primarily apply to more experienced lifters, such as yourselves.

    I would maintain that you could still see what works best for newbies (if anyone cared) as you can govern what they do easier, and things like different diets and more radical changes may work too e.g. current work being done looking at high dose ketone-body supplements with regards to erg score.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Troll Toll)
    Hmmm, today I jacked off before going to the gym and, after washing my hands, was able to do 2 reps on the axle clean and press. On Tuesday I only did one, but I had forgotten my wrist wraps and elbow sleeves so the extra gear whoring might have helped, although my elbow sleeves are pretty loose. Perhaps I didn't wash my hands as well as I should and my grip was helped by the extra stickiness. I also didn't train shoulders yesterday, whereas I did on Monday. But still, I got twice as strong in 3 days which is amazing since it's Friday (Friday) and I am tired because I've been up since 7am and all I've had to eat all day is a bowl of cereal. I would say these gains are sted like, especially since I did it on only half my usual dose of pro-plus (I never liked coffee, bracing myself for SMed's negs).

    I probably should have controlled all those variables but I didn't because I hate science :mfing:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    I would maintain that you could still see what works best for newbies (if anyone cared) as you can govern what they do easier, and things like different diets and more radical changes may work too e.g. current work being done looking at high dose ketone-body supplements with regards to erg score.
    To be honest I agree that I would like to see a properly executed study comparing stuff like Sheiko 29, WS4SB, SS + its offshoots and some kind of bodybuilding routine in absolute novices in terms of strength and muscle gains. Unfortunately I don't think anybody with the resources to do that would have the knowledge and vice versa.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by The Troll Toll)
    To be honest I agree that I would like to see a properly executed study comparing stuff like Sheiko 29, WS4SB, SS + its offshoots and some kind of bodybuilding routine in absolute novices in terms of strength and muscle gains. Unfortunately I don't think anybody with the resources to do that would have the knowledge and vice versa.
    I dunno - you get some weird PhDs these days...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Ok - you guys have convinced me that in some cases there are too many variables to make generally applicable studies of limited use. This would primarily apply to more experienced lifters, such as yourselves.

    I would maintain that you could still see what works best for newbies (if anyone cared) as you can govern what they do easier, and things like different diets and more radical changes may work too e.g. current work being done looking at high dose ketone-body supplements with regards to erg score.
    Beyond basic knowledge of exercises, diet and removal of pre-held broscience notions of training, most people would be better of tailoring their regime for themselves which can only arise from experience.

    For instance; EMG studies indicate decline bench to be the most pectoral stimulating exercise, however, for someone like me the only exercise which really makes my chest respond is incline presses which I have discovered from experimentation over my training career.

    Things like fitness over step the rigidity of scientific study save for the most abstract of descriptions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FluxD)
    Beyond basic knowledge of exercises, diet and removal of pre-held broscience notions of training, most people would be better of tailoring their regime for themselves which can only arise from experience.

    For instance; EMG studies indicate decline bench to be the most pectoral stimulating exercise, however, for someone like me the only exercise which really makes my chest respond is incline presses which I have discovered from experimentation over my training career.

    Things like fitness over step the rigidity of scientific study save for the most abstract of descriptions.
    Placebro effect, definitely.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SMed)
    Placebro effect, definitely.
    Definitely not, I can cite several bro-reviewed studies!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by FluxD)
    For instance; EMG studies indicate decline bench to be the most pectoral stimulating exercise, however, for someone like me the only exercise which really makes my chest respond is incline presses which I have discovered from experimentation over my training career.
    Ha - i'm tempted to argue that you being an exception may indeed be that - an exception. Your post is filled with all the normal flaws of anecdotal evidence - its s single case, completely uncontrolled, and you may be unknowingly biased. However, i've already accepted that there probably are too many variables to consider so i'll just say you are probably right.

    Also, i do object to the term 'fitness' - i think experiments are much more applicable to stamina-type fitness, and correspondingly you see a lot more research in this area. Weights training though, ok.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Having not 'messed around' for a while then working out, I find I have more energy and more 'tension', other than that I wouldn't call it an increase in strength.

    Even the hulk blew his gooey green load from time to time
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 10, 2011
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.