Finding a needle in a stack of needles. (body building)

ChroniC

ChroniC

ChroniC

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
10,192
No, not some strange thread about steroid needles, but rather a hunt for actual facts amongst so many "FACTS" 100% read more, this will make you big etc etc.
There seems to be a trillion website touting their headlines as fact to get click bait and ad revenue. It's prolific. So much so that it's become actual folklore for some. Aka bro Science.

That said, have there been scientific studies by actual real scientists, in real published papers on muscle gain/growth that can be read?

I'm sick of listening or reading crap from fitness companies or personal trainers pedaling their theories, "do 12reps, do 5 reps, trian to exhaustion, rest loads" etc etc
Thanks
 
ChroniC said:
No, not some strange thread about steroid needles, but rather a hunt for actual facts amongst so many "FACTS" 100% read more, this will make you big etc etc.
There seems to be a trillion website touting their headlines as fact to get click bait and ad revenue. It's prolific. So much so that it's become actual folklore for some. Aka bro Science.

That said, have there been scientific studies by actual real scientists, in real published papers on muscle gain/growth that can be read?

I'm sick of listening or reading crap from fitness companies or personal trainers pedaling their theories, "do 12reps, do 5 reps, trian to exhaustion, rest loads" etc etc
Thanks
Click to expand...

Yes. Loads.

The fact that you haven't found them suggests:

- You really have no idea what you're looking for;
- You haven't really looked;
- You probably might not be interested in actually reading what you found.

"Science" works around a different set of criteria to broscience...

- "gains" are not a thing, but damage-induced hypertrophy is;
- Reps are not necessarily discussed, but hormonal changes over time are;
- Loading is discussed, as are rest periods...

So if you know what you are looking for (think biology and physiology) it is very easy to find loads. The question is: will you know what to do with those ill-gotten brain gains?
 
Well aren't you mr presumptious. Although 1 fact is right, I have no idea what I'm looking for. Hence the thread, otherwise I wouldn't have started it asking for them, wiseguy.
Given that typing in "scientific papers on muscle building" brings up bodybuilding.com etc I'm inclinded to believe that maybe I would be looking for a while in the wrong direction, unless someone points me towards a science paper website that is free.
Might you have been inclinded to do so rather than being sour and berating me, I would have been very grateful.
My biology A level from many decades ago might get dusted off and looked at with excitement if my ill gotten brain gets too big, so nothing to complex would be nice, I will of course have to put down my copy of Gracia and get out my dictionary.

Or was your post a huge bunch of forum science. :)
 
Last edited:
Most people don't bother looking for a science paper. I personally got all of my knowledge from people with experience and people who clearly know how to put on muscle.

I thought it was common knowledge that if you eat big and lift big you will gain muscle. Then the building aspect is just a case of working key muscles in isolation if you want to look pretty, or do compound lifts for a more functional build.

I'm not sure what you want here. Are you wanting science papers for research reasons or for a practical application?.

Because if you want something to read and help you gain muscle then you aren't going to hurt yourself by reading advice from people with experience and not biology degrees.
 
Hedge said:
Most people don't bother looking for a science paper. I personally got all of my knowledge from people with experience and people who clearly know how to put on muscle.

I thought it was common knowledge that if you eat big and lift big you will gain muscle. Then the building aspect is just a case of working key muscles in isolation if you want to look pretty, or do compound lifts for a more functional build.

I'm not sure what you want here. Are you wanting science papers for research reasons or for a practical application?.

Because if you want something to read and help you gain muscle then you aren't going to hurt yourself by reading advice from people with experience and not biology degrees.
Click to expand...

Ok - let's step back up a second...

Most science related to "gains" concerns surrogate markers (I.e doing X resulted in an increase in Z which might indicate a 5% change in Y) and isn't directly applicable: it is inferred.

This is important because surrogate markers are normally tested in isolation (to make them stand out as being significant) and don't take other factors into consideration... The net effect of which - most of the time - is actually nil.

Further, most research in this area is with very small samples (supplement companies are cheapskates who don't want to pay for proper scientific research and sample groups)... So not only are the effects of rep range A or supplement B only ever seems through surrogate markers, the sample sizes aren't really big enough to be taken particularly seriously.

Hence my post which was meant as a wry dig at science in general: in "our" field, the science is most useless for 98% of people 98% of the time. Tom_e's point that most common understanding of lifting/gains are correct enough that absolute accuracy is irrelevant for most people (who has the time to train perfectly for their physiology, eat perfectly and rest perfectly? All in line with a regime tuned to their muscle type, hormone profiles and training history?)...

If you are interested in the physiology behind gains then find a textbook in the library as it will have a general enough overview, or head to pubmed.com or sciencedirect.com if you have the time and patience to find what you want. :)
 
mrthingyx said:
Tom_e's point that most common understanding of lifting/gains are correct enough that absolute accuracy is irrelevant for most people (who has the time to train perfectly for their physiology, eat perfectly and rest perfectly? All in line with a regime tuned to their muscle type, hormone profiles and training history?)...
Click to expand...

Bro do you just have me on the brain? I've not even posted in this thread...until now :p:D
 
The problem is and I think it's why I want a more regimented looked at the facts, is that what works for one person might not work for another. Or to be more precise, what one giant guy assumed was his reason for getting big might not be actually reproducable for others or might not have been the reason he got big in the first place.
If you get down to the core science of how things work then at least you can start to form some sort of key points and have a far greater focus on important factors.
If it is more important to have the protein than it is to lift heavy, or visa versa or anything in between then I would like to see that through actual studies rather than hearsay for practical and research reasons.

I will check out the website Mrthingyx, thankyou. I do have a lot of time on my hands and am interested in the subject.
 
Last edited:
ChroniC said:
The problem is and I think it's why I want a more regimented looked at the facts, is that what works for one person might not work for another. Or to be more precise, what one giant guy assumed was his reason for getting big might not be actually reproducable for others or might not have been the reason he got big in the first place.
If you get down to the core science of how things work then at least you can start to form some sort of key points and have a far greater focus on important factors.
If it is more important to have the protein than it is to lift heavy, or visa versa or anything in between then I would like to see that through actual studies rather than hearsay for practical and research reasons.

I will check out the website Mrthingyx, thankyou. I do have a lot of time on my hands and am interested in the subject.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely: but again we get down to the issue of "nobody really knows what worked for the goose so taking a punt on the same routine for the gander is probably best."

If you have time, things to look for are:

- hormone response (how the body reacts to lifting stimuli and rest periods);
- central nervous system drive;
- percentage strength/mass gains (direct measures... Not surrogate ones);
- athletic performance;
- trauma recovery (believe it or not, most of the "science" behind supplements actually comes from pharmaceutical research into disease and trauma... And is in only very tenuous circumstances related to gains)...

Very few people outside the world of elite sport/performance get routines tailored to their specific physiology and biochemistry, so the rest of us have to make do with general rules of thumb:

- shorter rest periods are better for size;
- cortisol WILL screw you over, regardless of how much you train (I.e. Rest days are important);
- eating more is better for gains;
- stimulus between 75-80% is better for strength gains, but undulating programs (I.e 4 weeks of 5s, 4 weeks of 3s, etc.) can yield better results;
- cardio is still a waste of time... ;)
- I read some amusing research the other week about loading ranges for gains... 80% vs 30% produces the same mass gains if performed for a final set to failure at the end... No doubt related to the first point).

There is loads, but as you can probably guess, it is all very general...
 
Alan Aragon's Research Review - £ subscription-based e-magazine looking at all the latest research relevant to training/nutrition and breaking it down into something more digestible.

Then for free on the interwebs, anything by...

Lyle McDonald (bodyrecomposition.com) - dated website but extremely comprehensive

Eric Helms, Brad Schoenfeld, James Krieger - at the forefront of the evidence-based community, creating and running studies on exercise science and nutrition when they're not writing articles or making cameos on social media for other people talking about training and nutrition.

Eric has a couple of books (The Training Pyramid and the Nutrition Pyramid) based off these old YouTube video series which are the bomb.

Training
Nutrition
 
Eat more and do Stronglifts for 6 months. If you concentrate on adding weight every week I'd be stunned if you don't add muscle.

In my experience some new lifters get way too complicated with lifting programs and/or diets they have no right to be considering yet. Building initial muscle and strength is not a black art, but has been made out to be by an out of control industry looking to make cash.

Keep it simple, keep it compound and eat more food.
 
Last edited:
Google scholar or pub med if you want scientific papers. See if anyone has performed a systematic review or meta analysis on muscle hypertrophy in athletes. If not we should get together and publish one - referencing yourself in a scientific discussion is the ultimate troll bait!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom