What Roll Does Science Play in Your Program??

[goergen1]

Given some of the recent discussions on the forum and the fact that people like to argue about science, I have a question.

When setting up a training program, what roll does science play in your program design???

I ask this because, after thinking things through, I use science to back up what I am already doing. I know the methods that work well, both generally, and specific to myself.

When looking to improve my program, I do not go to the research, I go to other lifters and athletes who have had good success using different training principals.

I suppose I use my own scientific experiments in order to figure out whet works for me. Of course, the results of these experiments are specific to myself as well.

So I ask others on this forum.

What do your use to determine your training programs, science and research, or practical use and application???

Be honest. I am interested in hearing the answers.

 

[KickNit]

When looking to improve my program, I do not go to the research, I go to other lifters and athletes who have had good success using different training principals.

So is that your scientific method?

I'm just curious what you are calling science if you don't use the research? Taking a poll hardly seems like science.

 

[Karky]

Well, science plays a pretty big role in my programming. However, I always try to do what works good for me, and like you say, try to listen to others who have had success and use some of their methods and see if it works for me. What convinced me to do FBWs instead of typical body builder splits was the science I read about it, and when I did it, I noticed gains for the first time in my life, which was WAY more determinal to me sticking with that approach.

doing big compound lifts instead of isolation was also pretty much science that got me to do, I read about hormone release, co ordination, the CNS, etc. And seeing gains was what really got me to stick with it.

those two are more related to me as a newbie when I first got into lifting, it was more science that got me to do stuff, but seeing results got me to stick with it.

Now, that I'm a bit more experienced, I more often turn towards more experienced lifters (often through forums such as this one) because I've noticed often we can't really explain why something works through science, so I like to get new ideas from people who have done and seen alot of stuff, that way I know the ideas have worked for some. Then again, if I see results, I stick with it.

I always knew the science behind not lifting too heavy every workout, like maxing DLs, squats, etc every week. However, I did this until it stopped working, when it stopped working, I stopped doing it.

When choosing sets reps and stuff like that, I think I rely alot on science. you know, hyp rep range, str rep range. This and that works the CNS better because this and that and the CNS needs to get better in order for us to get stronger.

I guess at the bottom line, what I keep in my programs is what I see working. If science says something works awsome, but I don't get gains from it, I scrap it. And visa versa.

 

[goergen1]

So is that your scientific method?

No. It is what I do when I want to get better.

I'm just curious what you are calling science if you don't use the research? Taking a poll hardly seems like science.

Did I say something about taking a poll???

What I meant by that statement is that I learn the training methods first, the science behind it second. So when I am looking to better my program I look at what successful people are using, and start using it. Then I look into why it works.

I am just interested in seeing how others go about setting up their programs. Do they start with the research. Or do they start with the practical use of a training method? I am not saying either is right or wrong. Just curiosity.

 

[goergen1]

doing big compound lifts instead of isolation was also pretty much science that got me to do, I read about hormone release, co ordination, the CNS, etc. And seeing gains was what really got me to stick with it.

That is an interesting perspective. I like to see how others started out. Karky you were more of a self starter and have a good perspective for learning the science in order to be convinced of the best type of training.

I had coaches in the beginning. So they would say "do this!" and I would say "OK." At the time the why's did not matter to me.

but seeing results got me to stick with it.

That would be the similarities between our two initial learning methods.

Now, that I'm a bit more experienced, I more often turn towards more experienced lifters (often through forums such as this one) because I've noticed often we can't really explain why something works through science, so I like to get new ideas from people who have done and seen alot of stuff, that way I know the ideas have worked for some. Then again, if I see results, I stick with it.

Maybe it is a question of the experience of the trainee?? In the beginning you need to learn the science in order to understand why you are doing what you are doing. Once you have the basics, training evolves more due to experimenting with the many different applications of each scientific principal??

 

[tonymcclellan]

I use science as a guideline or reference point. Science for the most part is general, just as fitness in itself. I refer to things like frequency, volume, and intensity for reference. However I will always follow the progress of the body any day.

Like Karky I like to look at the rep ranges for guidelines as well. But what I found out also was that the lower rep ranges are great for everyone. 1) I and many of my clients have never had so much fun lifting 2) It allows quicker confidence and motivation to just steamroll 3) Produces results

I like to apply scientific principles into training, but they certainly do not dictate what is and what isnt.

 

[Typhon]

Given some of the recent discussions on the forum and the fact that people like to argue about science, I have a question.

For my goals, science doesn't need to play a role; I started out by reading what other people did and copied them. Then, as I got more experienced I got a better understanding of what works for me.
All I want to do is get stronger, so while I'm off doing that, I'll leave the science buffs on here to discuss amoungst themselves what I'm doing wrong

 

[Karky]

That is an interesting perspective. I like to see how others started out. Karky you were more of a self starter and have a good perspective for learning the science in order to be convinced of the best type of training.

I had coaches in the beginning. So they would say "do this!" and I would say "OK." At the time the why's did not matter to me.



That would be the similarities between our two initial learning methods.



Maybe it is a question of the experience of the trainee?? In the beginning you need to learn the science in order to understand why you are doing what you are doing. Once you have the basics, training evolves more due to experimenting with the many different applications of each scientific principal??

Yeah I think so, the more experience you have, the more you know how your body responds and you can choose things based on experience instead of science. If we only relied on science to teach us new training methods, we would be stuck for ever, since the reason science discovers something new is usually because humans have tried it and seen the results and science wants to know why.

 

[Wrangell]

I ask this because, after thinking things through, I use science to back up what I am already doing. I know the methods that work well, both generally, and specific to myself.

When looking to improve my program, I do not go to the research, I go to other lifters and athletes who have had good success using different training principals.

I suppose I use my own scientific experiments in order to figure out whet works for me. Of course, the results of these experiments are specific to myself as well.

Interesting - you say you conduct your " own scientific experiments ".

Curious - what were the 3 most recent " scientific experiments " you conducted ?

What hypotheses did these 3 test - and what were your sample sizes and the results ?

 

[Karky]

Jesus, that's just .. you just want to argue for the sake of arguing don't you?

Here's an example of how such an experiment could be conducted.

Hypothesis: 10x3 squats will increase my leg size
try 10x3 squats for two months, measure leg size before and after.
that's the kind of experiments everyone conducts in the gym, if they don't they won't get anywhere in their training.

it will be a very "personal" experiment since the results will be only with you, and all the other things, like your diet, recovery, etc.

You don't need a lab coat and stuff like that to do a scientific experiment. Science is just observing, making a theory and testing that theory. Which I guess is what georgen and the rest of us do, we observe what other experienced folks do (or get an idea elsewhere) then try it for ourselves, etc.

 

[Wrangell]

those two are more related to me as a newbie when I first got into lifting, it was more science that got me to do stuff, but seeing results got me to stick with it.

Now, that I'm a bit more experienced, I more often turn towards more experienced lifters (often through forums such as this one) because I've noticed often we can't really explain why something works through science, so I like to get new ideas from people who have done and seen alot of stuff, that way I know the ideas have worked for some. Then again, if I see results, I stick with it.

I always knew the science behind not lifting too heavy every workout, like maxing DLs, squats, etc every week. However, I did this until it stopped working, when it stopped working, I stopped doing it.

Interesting.

Can you think of any other prime examples that best illustrate " something [ that ] works " - that even to this day - science is still unable to explain ?

Also, what was the scientific rationale for NOT " lifting too heavy every workout " ? Not sure I follow.

 

[Karky]

I can: Hyperplasia (I just said that to be funny, nomatter what I say, you won't believe it, since science doesn't support it.)

not lifting too heavy every workout, CNS burnout, fatigue, whatever you want to call it. I'm sure you've heard of "overtraining" (I'm talking about real overtraining, not the overramping thing so many refer to as overtraining)

 

[Wrangell]

I can: Hyperplasia (I just said that to be funny, nomatter what I say, you won't believe it, since science doesn't support it.)

You're right, hyperplasia is an inappropriate example of " something [ that ] works "

Hyperplasia is simply one theory to explain muscle mass gains - hyperplasia IS one possible explanation. However, that isn't what you're trying to explain - which is actual increases in muscle mass..........not hyperplasia.

not lifting too heavy every workout, CNS burnout, fatigue, whatever you want to call it. I'm sure you've heard of "overtraining" (I'm talking about real overtraining, not the overramping thing so many refer to as overtraining)

I see no of no rationale in science that suggests " lifting too heavy every workout " is necessarily bad - whatever " too heavy " means and what your goals are I suppose.

However, science based training principles and protocols acknowledge that over-training can occur, so I wouldn't say that science can't easily explain why that occurs either.

 

[goergen1]

Curious - what were the 3 most recent " scientific experiments " you conducted ?

What hypotheses did these 3 test - and what were your sample sizes and the results ?

Experimenting in the gym is very different than in a lab. Especially since there are only 3 answers.

1. Works
2. Works Better
3. Does Not Work.

Most recently??

I have been using the tendo unit to measure my maximum power output before each workout. I get the average of 8 squat jumps or hang snatches. I then compare that to my best average ever, and get a percentage. Example -

If my average power output for the day is 650 watts of power, and my best average is 700 watts of power, the percentage for that day is 92.857%. I use that percentage to decide what if my training day should be a power day, a heavy/max day, a work capacity day, or a day off.

I started using these percentages.

1. 95%+ - Power day
2. 90% - 95% Heavy/Max day
3. 85% - 90% Work Capacity Day
4. Less than 85% - Day Off

I used these percentages for 6 or 8 weeks. What I found was that I got really fatigued doing power days all the time, since they are the most taxing day, and my strength results suffered since I did had only one strength day. The solution was to increase the percentages to -

1. 97%+ - Power Day
2. 92% - 97% - Heavy/Max Day
3. 87% - 92% - Work Capacity Day
4. Les that 87% - Day Off

Upon changing the percentages, over the next 6 weeks my squat increased by 35lbs, my deadlift increased by 75lbs, my average power outputs increased 18%. So we can say that the new percentages work better.

So I got a specific better result from changing the percentages. I train with people who have very different percentages, some have a power window of 90%+ and their work capacity day is 80% - 85%. Significantly different than my percentages. But we are training in the best individual window to get the best results. So each person must run their own experiments in order to get the window that will work best for them.

The experiment before that??

Wat trying to figure out how many reps to average in order to get the best results. Initially I was using the 4 highest power outputs, and not all 8. I found that that also skewed things to too much intense training.

Why do this test in the beginning of a workout??

We have found that, once the proper percentages are tailed down, a trainee can not overtrain. You take a reading at the beginning of the workout, do what it says, whether it says go home or have a power day, it does not matter. It is what you are supposed to do. Of course, there is some slight change in the percentages as the training level increases. We have a protocol every 8 - 12 weeks that helps make better adjustments, as opposed to guessing.

The science behind using this testing method is simple. It is known that the first sign of overtraining is a lowered efficiency of the nervous system. The question was, "how do I test this?" Power output is a reliable measuring technique that will let the trainee stop any type of overtraining before the outward symptoms are present.

Of course there is no way to apply this to the individual trainee by looking at any research. It must be found through field testing. And the results are going to be different for each individual. In essence, science is not able to explain how to apply what it finds, that is what practical knowledge and experimentation is all about.

What we are finding is that science can provide guidelines, but is unable to provide application.

 

[Wrangell]

Experimenting in the gym is very different than in a lab. Especially since there are only 3 answers.

1. Works
2. Works Better
3. Does Not Work.

Most recently??

I have been using the tendo unit to measure my maximum power output before each workout. I get the average of 8 squat jumps or hang snatches. I then compare that to my best average ever, and get a percentage. Example -

If my average power output for the day is 650 watts of power, and my best average is 700 watts of power, the percentage for that day is 92.857%. I use that percentage to decide what if my training day should be a power day, a heavy/max day, a work capacity day, or a day off.

I started using these percentages.

1. 95%+ - Power day
2. 90% - 95% Heavy/Max day
3. 85% - 90% Work Capacity Day
4. Less than 85% - Day Off

I used these percentages for 6 or 8 weeks. What I found was that I got really fatigued doing power days all the time, since they are the most taxing day, and my strength results suffered since I did had only one strength day. The solution was to increase the percentages to -

1. 97%+ - Power Day
2. 92% - 97% - Heavy/Max Day
3. 87% - 92% - Work Capacity Day
4. Les that 87% - Day Off

Upon changing the percentages, over the next 6 weeks my squat increased by 35lbs, my deadlift increased by 75lbs, my average power outputs increased 18%. So we can say that the new percentages work better.

Interesting.

During those first 6- 8 weeks , what was the benchmark - what were your gains in squat, deadlifts power output ?

And, during the revised % 6 weeks, how may actual training days did you have - i.e 24 +/- days of actual training ?

And of those total training days - let's assume it is 24 days, how many of those days were allocated to each of ....

- Power days
- Heavy/Max Days
- Work Capacity Days​

And, what are the basic differences between a Power day vs. a Heavy/Max Day vs.a Work Capacity Day ?

 

[g8r80]

I am a wetland scientist by degrees by vocation and by research. I deal with the concept of scientific theory all day long. I see the scientific method (observation, pose question, test hypothesis, revise hypothesis, re-test hypothesis, etc.) and applications in fitness just as I do in many other aspects of life.

Fitness example: I see people doing a lot of sprint cycling (observation) but I tend to do a lot of hard pounding. Would I be better off sprint cycling (question/hypothesis). I think I will try a day or week of sprint cycling and see if it improves my stamina and speed (hypothesis). After one day, I realize I don't have the cardio for sprint cycling yet (results) but will re-entertain this concept after 6 months more of base development (discussion).

Business example: I see a new marketing plan being used by others (observation). Hmmm, I wonder if it will work for me (question/hypothesis)?. I try it and it is a dismal failure (results) and vow never to do it again (discussion).

Wrangell, in neither case do I set up a large, parametric sample size because this is not headed for a scientific journal publication, but is scientific method nonetheless.

So, Gerogen, to answer your question, maybe because I am a classicly-trained scientist, I incorporate the scientific method into a wide variety of my daily, professional, daily and non-professional applications, including fitness (e.g., types of lifts, weights used, reps, types of cycling, hours, sprints, hillclimbing, stationary bike applications, etc.)

 

[goergen1]

During those first 6- 8 weeks , what was the benchmark - what were your gains in squat, deadlifts power output ?

The gains were minimal. 5 lbs on a couple of lifts. No change in power output.

And, during the revised % 6 weeks, how may actual training days did you have - i.e 24 +/- days of actual training ?

I tend to train 5 or 6 days per week. So the actual # workouts were about 30. I would have been closer to 34 or 36, but there was a contest in there and I had a couple training days off before and after that.

And of those total training days - let's assume it is 24 days, how many of those days were allocated to each of ....

- Power days
- Heavy/Max Days
- Work Capacity Days

It does not matter since it will be different for every 6 week period. Especially since I have 3+ power days practicing throwing, where I do not use the test because I will throw anyway since I need the practice. Some of those days will be higher volume throwing days and some will be lower volume throwing days. They will effect the scores from the power test so there is no way to predict the distribution of the 3 different training days.

That is why the test is used, to know where the body is on the gym training days.

That being said. I still have a lot of power days since I recover pretty fast. I am considering increasing the percentages up another % to see how that turns out.

And, what are the basic differences between a Power day vs. a Heavy/Max Day vs.a Work Capacity Day ?

They are exactly what they sound like.

A power day will be focused on power, the amount of weight is of no concern and the speed of lifts / exercises are what is important. I use the vertimax on this day we well as kettle bells, and some more traditional power movements.

A heavy / max day is what it sounds like. I keep the weights high and the reps low and work on strength.

A work capacity day is just work with the goal of getting in better shape. It could be some strongman events, circuits, higher rep training. Anything that will increase conditioning.

I do break the rules some.

I do work capacity training to some extent almost every workout. Work capacity only gets its own day if I test low and know that should not be doing the more mentally and physically taxing power and heavy work.

I will do some low rep / maxing on the power days. Generally after 1 or 2 power exercises. I think I did this 2X in the last 6 week cycle. I do this if I am feeling really good doing an exercise and think I will break a PR.

Some days I break all of the rules and do whatever I feel like. (I think I did that 2X during the last 6 weeks as well)

You can visit my training log to get a better idea of how things work, You will see there where I break the rules and what the training looks like.

There you will also see when I started using the tendo, and when I moved the percentages up. You will also see that it is not as organized as it sounds when I write about it here.

 

[goergen1]

So, Gerogen, to answer your question, maybe because I am a classicly-trained scientist, I incorporate the scientific method into a wide variety of my daily, professional, daily and non-professional applications, including fitness (e.g., types of lifts, weights used, reps, types of cycling, hours, sprints, hillclimbing, stationary bike applications, etc.)

You use a sort of field testing when it comes to your training. I think people that do this have better results over the long term.

Super Cool Man.

 

[Wrangell]

I am a wetland scientist by degrees by vocation and by research. I deal with the concept of scientific theory all day long. I see the scientific method (observation, pose question, test hypothesis, revise hypothesis, re-test hypothesis, etc.) and applications in fitness just as I do in many other aspects of life.

Fitness example: I see people doing a lot of sprint cycling (observation) but I tend to do a lot of hard pounding. Would I be better off sprint cycling (question/hypothesis). I think I will try a day or week of sprint cycling and see if it improves my stamina and speed (hypothesis). After one day, I realize I don't have the cardio for sprint cycling yet (results) but will re-entertain this concept after 6 months more of base development (discussion).

If you don't have the cardio to do sprint cycling - you simply stop doing it after 1 day only - what can you really ' conclude ' ? Conclude - as in whether sprint cycling will improve stamina the same , worse or better than ' hard pounding ' ?

So, if the hypothesis is that sprint cycling might improve stamina and speed BETTER than hard pounding, wouldn't it be better to do both with the same duration and frequency and intensity to see which really yields the better results ??

Business example: I see a new marketing plan being used by others (observation). Hmmm, I wonder if it will work for me (question/hypothesis)?. I try it and it is a dismal failure (results) and vow never to do it again (discussion).

Good point - if the plan works for one or 10 other people - yet - doesn't work for you...what can one conclude ? That is works or it doesn't ?

 

[g8r80]

If you don't have the cardio to do sprint cycling - you simply stop doing it after 1 day only - what can you really ' conclude ' ? Conclude - as in whether sprint cycling will improve stamina the same , worse or better than ' hard pounding ' ?

I am employing the scientific method. Observation: During the Tour de France, one of the cyclists says "...to become vetty fast, you must do sprint training". So, I generate the hypothesis, "Will sprint cycling help me at this stage of my training? I test the hypothesis and my results are that my heart rate shoots up to an unacceptable level too quickly, thus minimizing the benefit of that exercise. Therefore, I would be better off with an exercise that is not as intense.(I am not a personal trainer, but I think this is a reasonable statement with which any personal trainer or exercise physiologist would.) I cannot conclude that sprint training will improve stamina the same, worse or better than hard pounding, that will take multiple iterative hypothesis testing, but I can conclude that, for me, sprint cycling is not a good training tool at this time, but will be a hypothesize I retry after another 6 months of current work, which has given me good gains over the last year (another observation).

That said, I am employing the scientific method.

Good point - if the plan works for one or 10 other people - yet - doesn't work for you...what can one conclude ? That is works or it doesn't ?

Hmm, depends on whether you are practicing or researching. This is no different from a doctor prescribing a med, e.g. Lipitor, to a patient. If the med works, the doc will probably use it on others. If it doesn't work on that patient, he may use it on other patients but not that one. If he is in a university setting, he may generate his results using some level of comfort (e.g., p<.01) and publish these. If he is a practitioner, his results will not benefit the medical world but will benefit his patients. If I tried method A and it failed for me then I know it doesn't work for me. That is not to say it may work for another. Since, I am not a researcher with an unlimited sample size, I cannot answer your question, but, that doesn't mean I didn't use the scientific method.