Strength without weight gains, but no time...

[Merryprankster]

Alright,

One of you gurus tell me how to get stronger without gaining any weight.... and then tell me how to do it in a maximum of 20 minutes per workout, ACTUAL gym time, including warm-ups.

No machines.

[Mr. Bao]

Merry,

Greetings. I am no guru, but iron fist, el pietro, ford pefect, and abobo seem to be the gurus here and if i left anyone out pls do forgive me.

First, warm ups are over rated especially if strength is your main concern. Why? If you read Supertraining by Professor Siff or even the Pavel's Power to The People, these communist russians strength guru do not really believe in the benefits of warm ups like us americans. To sum it up, you waste energy for strength training. If you warm up to prevent injuries, there are plenty of research and experience of athletes who don't warm ups and lift crazy weight with no injuries. Practice common sense and also
try to practice "economy of movement and energy" which a theory within my martial paradigm.

20 mins only? Ok, do one set of 5 reps/ 2 mins bet. the next exercises/ do the five basic power movements such as bench press, shoulder press, deadlifts, bar rows, and last but not least squats. You can do this daily without bulking up, and you shouldn't go to muscular failure. Pick a weight where you can do 8-10 reps and just do 5 reps, of course you can do progressive loading, but never to failure. If you worry of over training or being too sore, then you don't understand this kind of training and I suggest reading up on this kind of training.

Go check out Pavel's book Power to The People at www.dragondoor.com. I hope this helps.

[Merryprankster]

I figured somebody'd bring up Pavel :D

next?

[abobo]

I wouldn't call myself a guru - but Baobao, let's just say I'm smarter than the average bear...

Your question is definitely leaning toward PtP, which is for absolute strength (not mass), can be done in 20 minutes (4 sets, ~5 min rest intervals), with two heavy compound lifts (no machines).

But, while I understand it all on paper, I am actually just starting the program today myself, so I'll refer you to Ironfist's explanation (http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=19192).

[FatherDog]

I do PTP with neck presses and pullups added, and I'm in and out of the gym within about a half hour. I haven't been doing it long enough to really testify for it's effectiveness, but you can definitely do it within your proscribed time constraints.

[fa_jing]

300 Hindu squats, 100 Hindu pushups. 1 set of pullups. Some kind of bridging for a minute or two. 100 jumping jacks. You're done, in about 20-25 minutes.

That's if 300 hindu squats tire you out. If you are some kind of 1000-rep squatter, this workout would take much longer and put you over your target time.

[ricksitterly]

i imagine a crucial factor here is how you eat. whenever i'm doing any kind of training, be it weights/ grappling/ boxing/ whatever, i tend to get stronger over time but my weight doesnt seem to change that much unless i eat accordingly. of coarse, i have read that at some point, the body can get no stronger unless it increases it's mass. i suppose some weight gain, at least some small gains in lean muscle mass, are inevitable if u do strength training long enough. what's the big deal anyway....
dont u want to be HUGE!!!???? BE A MAN ! STOP TALKING LIKE A WUSSY!!!! :)

[Merryprankster]

LOL,

I shouldn't really worry about gaining weight... it's not something I do well anyway :D

I was really just trying to say, don't give me a hypertrophy workout.

I definitely can't do more than 2 or 3x per week, so I'll probably have to stick with the core power lifts--and because of my training schedule- 2 a days, plus a wierd sleep cycle, I'll have to take precautions to avoid overtraining...especially when cutting weight.

[ElPietro]

If you can do something 300 times, rest assured you are not building strength.

If you have limited time, then do extremely heavy compound movements. With squats, bench and deadlifts you are pretty much hitting every musclegroup. Focus on lifting heavier every time you lift, and work in the 1-6 rep range for your first set after warmup. You could alternate squats and deads as they work many similar muscle groups. Or alternate intensity week to week.

I'm not sure if some are confusing warmup for stretching. I don't know many power lifter or strength trainers that don't believe in warming up, but the rest of the argument could be applied to stretching, as stretching prior to lifting hasn't shown to reduce injuries at all in strength training athletes.

[CD Lee]

I have started lifting good again recently and have been successful in losing only 3-6 pounds, but have gained much better muscle and strength at the same time. The beauty of course, is gaining muscle and strength while losing fat. My pants are definately getting lose.

So depending on what shape you are in, maybe you could do the lose fat, gain muscle approach for a while. In my case, I am eating a LOT less than I was before. At some point, that will no longer work once you get real lean. Surely you have some extra padding to lose?

Then of course, once lean, the food factor is primary, as it will take a certian amount of calories to maintain your body weight. Just make sure it is not all beer.

[fa_jing]

Originally posted by ElPietro
If you can do something 300 times, rest assured you are not building strength.



Prolly not, but you can increase your muscle endurance, maintain your muscular strength, improve your structure, and strengthen your tendons and ligament. All this leads to a moderate increase in sports-specific strength. Lets not belittle muscular endurance - it may not be much for Self-Defense, but when you fight rounds and kick and punch the bag repeatedly you'll find that you want that endurance as much as you want raw strength. I think it might be a good thing to focus on for a while if you have a reason to - mine is injury, but MP's might be time consideration. Anyway I'm sure he's way too bored by bodyweight exercises just like everyone else.

[abobo]

Originally posted by CD Lee
So depending on what shape you are in, maybe you could do the lose fat, gain muscle approach for a while.

Those are conflicting goals, really, so trying to do both at once can be extremely difficult to do (unless, like yourself, the person is just getting into lifting weights).

[Merryprankster]

Actually, I don't have much padding to lose. Even when I walk around at 190 I don't have that much to lose. I can get down to 176 before performance begins to suffer. After that, I'm fighting my body's natural "set point," range and recovery, endurance and strength all begin to deteriorate.

I probably don't carry more than 8% BF even at 190.

[ElPietro]

fa_jing, I was just addressing what he said his goal was. Which is why I commented on your suggestions. If he had said muscular endurance I may have agreed with you. But training as you suggested would not maintain top end strength, it would more than likely decrease it. And it takes longer to perform 300 of anything versus 1-6 reps. So that is why I said what I did. Just addressing the specific goal he stated.

[Cheese Dog]

Merryprankster, do you practice any of the Olympic lifts or their variations? If so, they are very effective for strength and explosiveness gains. Since you do them for only a few sets of low reps, they are not time consuming and won't usually make you too sore to practice MA.

A good schedule would be something like this:
MONDAY
Clean and Jerk--2 or 3 sets of 3 light to warm up, then 3x3 heavy
Power Clean--2 or 3x3
WEDNESDAY
Bench Press--3x3-5. (Okay, it's not an Oly lift. But we are manly men and MUST bench press!)
Straight Leg Deadlifts or Good Mornings-- 3x6-8
FRIDAY
Snatch--3 sets light to warm up, then 3x3 heavy
Ab work--your usual routine

Do not lift to failure, always leave a rep "in reserve"
This schedule will have you in and out of the gym quickly. If you're pressed for time just do the Clean and Presses, Bench Press, and the Snatch on their respective days.

[Merryprankster]

I'm very familiar with O-lifts. Used to be a shotputter and discus thrower.

I was just trying to see if somebody had any revelations on the subject :D

[fa_jing]

Hey does anyone do the military press (front) with a leg assist? That was a great one when I was lifiting weights.

[Ford Prefect]

Merry,

All strength with no mass gains things can be broken down to:

Heavy Weight (large % of 1RM); Low reps(1-5); Long rest(3 minutes)

Just follow those principles and you'll be set.


Fa-Jing,

It's called a push-press. Good exercise.

[Merryprankster]

Ford, that's what I figured.

Fa-Jing, the push press was/is one of my favorite exercises.

[CD Lee]

Abobo said


Those are conflicting goals, really, so trying to do both at once can be extremely difficult
to do (unless, like yourself, the person is just getting into lifting weights).



Not true at all. If you have extra fat in the range of 20 lbs, even 10 lbs (which is a lot of fat BTW...), if you do nothing except lift weights, you will begin to increase your muscular percentage vs. fat percentage. If you are dieting or at least not overeating, you will start to lose fat, although you may increase weight or maintain. But you can easily lose fat while gaining muscle.
This is what thousands have done with the Body for Life Program by Bill Phillips. They lose fat, and gain muscle. Plus, you body requires 8 times more food than fat does to maintain. So if you increase your muscle percentage, you start to starve your fat supplies in a sense.

Now, a lot of people try to gain muscle by overeating and taking big protein shakes, and increasing their caloric intake significanly beyond what their body requires to maintain a given weight. You bet you will gain muscle AND fat with that approach. If you diet properly, however, you will not always gain fat while gaining muscle.

If you have a low bodyfat percentage, then yes, you may gain some fat trying to force extra muscle on. Like I said, it depends mainly on the amount of food people are stuffing down their pipes more than anything else.

Also, remember, people who have muscles and are still somewhat fatty, have fat inside their muscles as well as fat outside their muscles. So even changing the BF percentage, may inrease their muscle mass significanly without gaining much size.

As far as just starting, I lifted weights and did bodybuilding for 9 years staight when younger. I have just stared to lift again to get some strength back, and starve the fat. It is working so far. Don't jinx me! :D

[CD Lee]

Hey you gym rats or ex-gym rats, check this link out. If you have ever lifted regularly in a gym, you will laugh your @ss off reading these stories!

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/embar.htm

[BrentCarey]

This post has been removed because the people that are responding to it are not reading it thoroughly anyway.

[Ford Prefect]

Moving more weight with fewer reps and more rest between sets tends to contribute to hypertrophy. Moving less weight with more reps and less rest between sets tends to contribute more to endurance.

This is an old myth in American weight training. It has been disproven a long a time ago. Moving less weight with more reps(10-15 reps) and less rest is exactly how a typical bodybuilder trains. I might be going out on a limb saying this, but they have a decent amount of hypertrophy...


So, I would propose that you consider an endurance program rather than a strength program if that is consistent with your goals.

It is quite easy to gain a lot of strength with little weight gain in a limitted time per workout and with minimal disturbance to his MA training (ie DOMS). That is his goal...


OK, here comes the really useful advice. Remember that I said that a strength program tends to contribute to hypertrophy.

Sorry bud. I don't mean to pick your post apart, but we are trying to move away from common weight training misconceptions here, and this is one of them. The above comment is wrong.

I'm not attacking you personally, so please don't take it that way. Your post is just filled with old misconceptions and myths that have been plaguing the average trainee for decades. Most strength coaches "in the know" are well aware of these misconceptions, but the average Joe usually believes what he reads in Muscle Media and still believes in spot reduction.

[BrentCarey]

This post has been removed because the people that are responding to it are not reading it thoroughly anyway.

[BrentCarey]

This post has been removed because the people that are responding to it are not reading it thoroughly anyway.

[IronFist]

BrentCarey said:

Incidentally, there is very little reason to do as few as 1-5 reps - especially in a strength program.

Dude... um... where did you learn this? Show me one effective strength cycle that doesn't involve low reps, particularly toward the end of the cycle.

Or, just explain to me why lifting heavy weights (ie. low reps) is NOT a good way to build strength, which is essentially what you've said in your post above. So, what you're saying is, to build raw strength, it's best to lift lighter weights at higher reps (6+ reps)? I don't think so.

No. Strength programs do tend to contribute to hypertrophy

I'll be sure to tell that to the 140lb Olympic lifters.

IronFist

[BrentCarey]

This post has been removed because the people that are responding to it are not reading it thoroughly anyway.

[Ford Prefect]

Brent,

No offense, but being a personal trainer really doesn't mean squat. They are often mocked for subscribing to old American myths of strength training. The weight lifting which you described in your post was chaulk full of them. (the diet stuff was generally fine)


I would be interested to see any credible research that support this. I have completed NASM, ACE, and Apex certifications, and these courses all support my assertion.

How about reading "Superfitness" by Mel Siff which about all professional strength coaches would agree is the most comprehensive strength and conditioning book around in english. You could also check with Westside Barbell who have put Mel's work into effect to become the premier powerlifting gym in the world with mupltiple 1,000 lbs squatters and 700+lbs benchers.

Better yet, you could just look at elite hypertrophy athletes (bodybuilders) and elite strength athletes (powerlifters and olympic lifters). The typical bodybuilding program consists of a high volume mix of 8-20 reps and short rest periods. Of course the men that recommend such an approach for hypertrophy are know-nothings like Arnold, Frank Zane, Franco Columbo, Ronnie Coleman, etc; not to mention men like Mel Siff, Charles Polquin, Ian King, Pavel Tsatsouline, Brooks Kubrik, John Davies, etc. These are only men who have either put their knowledge about hypertrophy to use to become Mr Olympia, but the second list are men who train NCAA div 1, NFL, NHL, MLB, and NBA sports teams.

Then take a look at powerlifters and olympic lifters. They primarily in the 1-3 rep range, yet one look at the any elite-class powerlifter in the 120-145 lbs weight class would tell you that he OR SHE could most likely outlift most bodybuilders. Their constant training with maximal weights with long rest periods has not caused them to undergo much hypertrophy at all.

You could always reference the Energetic Theory of Muscle Hypertrophy as well. Medvedyev, a Soviet weight lifting coach, has done extensive research on this theory and has helped it become the most widely accepted theory on muscle hypertrophy around. After all, our "cutting edge" strength training info just arriving in the US is from the collapse of the Soviets and Eastern Block states a la Siff, Pavel, King, Poliquin, etc. There is a reason why they dominated the Olympic scene for so long over their "western trained" American colleagues.

While the Energetic Theory of Muscle Hypertrophy does show that lifting heavy weights (5-8 reps) can well premote (sarcoplasmic - ie lots of size) hypertrophy, this only when it is combined with short rest periods AND high volume. However, it also states that heavy weights (1-5 reps), long rest periods, and low volume will cause some myfabrillar/sarcomere hypertrophy, but that doesn't equate to muscle size, just density. Most gains are neurological in nature.


I still contend that mass will be managed most effectively through nutrition.

I don't contend that.


No. Strength programs do tend to contribute to hypertrophy. They don't have to, but they do tend to. I am also not saying that a strength program will make you huge. I am just saying what I just said. Remember here that muscle mass gain does not necessarily translate to increased size, just increased mass.

Please be more clear then. The original question was about not gaining mass, but still gaining strength. You can use the terms sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and myofabrillar/sarcomere hypertrophy to better explain which effect you are talking about. I only use "sarcomere" hypertrophy because most western personal trainer programs teach this term rather than the more commonly accepted myofabrillar hypertrophy.


The proof is in the results.

Exactly. Now look at elite hypertrophy athletes, elite strength athletes, and elite strength and conditioning coaches.


If my experience has shown me nothing else, it has shown me that two people with identical goals may require drastically different programs.

This is true but misleading. Some people will still undergo massive hypertrophy with volume and intensity that would do nothing for another person. This is usually a case of body type and nutrition though. There are other factors in each individuals energy system, but I'm talking about rule; not the exception.

For research, try reading:

"Super Training" and "Facts and Fallacies of Fitness" by Mel Siff, PhD (Highly respected PhD in strength/fitness training in the world. Any other PhD in sports related sciences is guaranteed to have read his work. His influence can be found extensively in the USA)

"Power to the People" by Pavel Tsatsouline

You may be able to find the translated works of Medvedyev.

Works by Ian King, Charles Poliquin, John Davies, Dave tate, Louie Simmons. Works on methods used by Soviet, German, Hungarian, etc olympic lifters.

I'd say Fact and Fallacies is great place to start though. It breaks down all the misconceptions that traditional western training holds as truth.

[Ford Prefect]

Siff was Senior Lecturer in mechanical engineering at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa for many years, where his major areas of research were biomechanics, ergonomics, strength conditioning and injury rehabilitation. His Master degree (Applied Mathematics) was awarded summa cum laude in brain research and his PhD was in physiology, specializing in biomechanics. He has presented papers internationally at conferences in sports science, physiology, physiotherapy, sports medicine, psychology, engineering, ergonomics, physical education, linguistics and communication. He has published widely and lectured in many countries. He is a former weightlifter who received university, provincial and national awards for many years, he was chairman of the South African Universities Weightlifting Association for more than two decades and was manager-coach of the South African national weightlifting team in 1983 and 1984. He now lives in the U.S. and has an internet site called Supertraining
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining). Both the site and the book are interesting resources for information.

I just wanted you to know that I'm not talking about some hack. He has lectured and instructed countless teams, coaches, and universites in numerous countries. He is considered one the the fore-most experts on strength training in the world. He has researched his work from decades of research from trainers and scientists in both the East and the West.

[CD Lee]

Ford Perfect -

I just wanted to let you know that your earlier post on sports authorities, credentials, myths, and hypertrophy theory was great. Filled not only with great information on strength training approaches and effects, but a mountain of leading edge references. One could take that one post, and go out over months, buying those books, and doing research, and be very well informed on sports science. Just wanted to say thanks.

I used to read Arnold's works, Franco, all the muscle mag stuff. I am outdated about 20 years on some things. I am catching up again on nutrition, but I need to check out some of the works you mentioned.

One experience I'll share is that I read a Russian approach in high school to build strength in some magazine. I was in a weightlifting class, in which the coach could have cared less if anybody did anything right. So me and my friend decided to follow the Russian thing I had read in a mag, warming up and doing only 2 reps per set. Our strength shot up dramatically. We did this on the bench for maybe 6 months, and I was able to acieve a free weight bench press of 275 at a weight of only 148 lbs. This was a huge jump for both of us personally, and we were amazed at the gains in actual strength. I abandoned the approach shortly thereafter, as it was only an experiement and I liked the 10 rep stuff.

Anyways, thanks for the wealth of info, but even better the technical references!

[CD Lee]

Ford - Also, I am currently as I have stated, lifting weights again to build muscle and strength, not really mass. I am carrying too much fat around my midsection and back, and I want to get rid of that. Plus, I play competitive tennis, and bodyweight is very rough on my knees.

My question, is with the basic lifting (whole body, 12 reps - one workout, twice a week for now), and doing a Weight Watchers routine, what do you think will happen? I am losing weight right now, and gaining strength. Is it 'possible' that I am losing actual muscle, while continuing to make strenth gains? Or am I maintaining current muscle, and losing fat(I am losing fat at least).

The real thing here is that I am purposefully consuming fewer calories than it takes to maintain my body weight.

[IronFist]

Ford, nice posts.

IronFist

[Ford Prefect]

CD Lee,

Maintaining muscle mass while losing weight has been the bane of bodybuilders for years. When you lose weight, you'll sacrafice some muscle mass, but that doesn't mean that you can't continue to get stronger. Basing your program on neurological adaption rather than muscle hypertrophy should allow you to gain strength while reducing bodyweight. How often can you workout/week?

[BrentCarey]

This post has been removed because the people that are responding to it are not reading it thoroughly anyway.

[ElPietro]

Originally posted by BrentCarey


This is not good advice. This prescription is specifically indicated in a muscle gain program. Incidentally, there is very little reason to do as few as 1-5 reps - especially in a strength program.

-B

Sorry, I skipped most of what Ford posted after this, but I read this and absolutely had to comment. This is about as ass-backward a statement anyone could make. I think a 6 year old could pass an ACE certification given 3 days study time and a pamphlet. So please don't come here with a high and mighty attitude, because truly you are being judge for your statements, not your grade on some test, or some paper you may or may not have.

Your above statement is SO wrong, that it makes me wonder how any of your other statements were correct. I don't even know how I could correct you without having to explain the basics of muscle physiology, and neurology. But since you have a high and mighty attitude, and consider your GOOD time too valuable to waste on a forum of your betters, I won't waste my time either.

If you want to learn, do some more reading here, or ask some questions. If not, stfu.

[Ford Prefect]

Brent,

I see. So the emperical fitness knowledge you've gained is better than the empirical knowledge of the premier powerlifting club in the world (Westside Barbell), one of the premier strength training experts in the world (Siff), people that train olympic weight lifters & athletes/NFL/NHL/NBA/MLB (Davies, Poliquin, King, Medvedyev)? This stuff is only conseidered cutting edge in the States because people had been training bass-ackwards here for so long. Your posts prove it.

About diet... Please look up the word "contend" in the dictionary. It may help you in your understanding of the english language. In plain english, the sentence, "I don't contend that" means "I do not disagree with that".

[Robinf]

Brent,

I looked on your school's website and it gives a schedule to live by. I was wondering if you follow that? I'm just curious if all that works.

Ironfist,
I passed the ACE and found that fewer than three days is necessary to study for it--it's mostly common sense. I'm now a fairly popular cardiokickboxing teacher.

Ford (and/or Ironfist and/or....),
I've found that I've gained weight on the scale but my clothing still fits as it did when I weighed less on the scale. I'm assuming this is a good thing, for one. But, I have noticed that I've stalled in my chin up gains--stuck at 6-4-4, and my squat has stalled. Any help? Do I need, now to increase in size in order to make further gains? That would seem to make sense to me, but if there's a way around that..... Or do I need to change up for a while and get back to those exercises after some different routine? Any thoughts? What has worked for you (know that it might not work for me, but it might spark some ideas in me, right now I'm dead in the water).

[IronFist]

Certifications don't mean anything. When I got one, I didn't have to learn anything I didn't already know. I knew my **** before, I know my **** now, and the certification doesn't mean anything at all. The only reason I got it was because it was required to work at my univeristy's gym.

The point is, saying "I have X certification" doesn't make you any more credible than if you didn't have it. In fact, I've seen trainers that hold many certifications say things that are wrong, give bad advice, etc.

BrentCarey said:
Credentials don't impress me (referring to Siff post), empirical evidence impresses me

Credentials don't impress you, but you sure seemed to list off yours in a hurry. If empirical evidence impresses you, then go read a physiology book so you stop saying things like this:

Incidentally, there is very little reason to do as few as 1-5 reps - especially in a strength program

IronFist

[Merryprankster]

Guys,

Thank you. The advice I am getting here is consistent with my understanding of weighttraining for optimal strength to weight ratios--low volume, long rest, heavy weights. I was, of course, just looking for some ideas to go along with that basic understanding...

Now, what sort of percentages are we talking? :D

Secondly, I could only make it to lifting twice a week--maybe three times if I pushed it. I'd like to build my program around squats or deads.

[abobo]

Do you mean what percentage of your max constitutes "heavy" lifting? That's going to be ~85% 1RM. You can try out this calculator (http://www.huskerpower.net/1RM.html)
for 1RM if you want. As you know, there are a number of loading schemes that let you ramp up to and beyond that percentage, some of which have been posted already. So it looks like you are ready to start putting something together. I don't think it's my place to do so, but with your goals, your schedule, and your preferred exercises, one of the others should be able to give you input on your program.

--

Edit: I starting to beat the dead horse about certain posts that were removed, but on second thought it was unecessary.

[CD Lee]

FordPerfect said:


Basing your program on neurological adaption rather than
muscle hypertrophy should allow you to gain strength while reducing bodyweight. How
often can you workout/week?



I can workout more times per week if need be, to achieve my goals. I just wanted to take it easy this time around, and not get going too heavy too fast. Also, I was sore at first longer than I used to be when younger, and had some cramps. But the cramps have left, and I am not getting sore like I was. I could do 3 times a week.

Could you go into more deatil about neurological adaption?

[stubbs]

i don't have time to write much, but off the top of my head, and bear in mind im still new to exercise science, i thought it might be worth to mention the different muscle fibres:

ST
FTa
FTb

from what i know doing different weights can target these muscle fibres to achieve the results you want,

ST (slow twitch) fibres are good for endurance but not so great for raw strength. these can be targeted by high reps (12+) of a low 1rep max percentage.

FTa (fast twitch a) are good for strength, fairly good at endurance but targeting these tends to lead to hypertrophy. these can be targeted with middling weights for middling reps (8-12).

FTb are good for high intensity work, good for building raw strength and also good for sprinters but have poor endurance. these can be targeted with a high 1rep max percentage of small reps (1-5).

when you target ST, you target ST alone, when you target FTa you also use your ST fibres, FTb has the maximum stimulation by using all three fibres.

after reading the above i've realised how crap it sounds but hopefully somebody with the knowledge can elaborate and correct me where needbe. anyone that does correct me, please be kind im still learning :)

cheers,
stubbs
________
Buy Mflb (http://www.vaporshop.com/mflb-vaporizer.html)

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by BrentCarey
This post has been removed because the people that are responding to it are not reading it thoroughly anyway.

What a surprise! Another training protocol about which BC is misinformed. Sorry, but you should enroll in a university level exercise science program if you are going to coach and train others.

People who have no formal education in the field of exercise science and are training/teaching others are an insult to those of us who busted our buns in college and are trying to teach our athletes correct training procedures.

FP, IF, EP-
Good, well-informed posts. MP- take their advice.

[Robinf]

Brent,

My question is an honest one. Please reply to it in my other post.

[ElPietro]

Originally posted by Knifefighter

People who have no formal education in the field of exercise science and are training/teaching others are an insult to those of us who busted our buns in college and are trying to teach our athletes correct training procedures.


I really have to disagree strongly with this statement. I think just because education is formal doesn't really mean anything to me. In fact, I feel that formal education is inferior in many cases.

Why do I say this? Because formal education relies on textbooks, and material that is often out of date, and it takes quite a bit of administrative effort, for the class material/curriculum to be updated/adjusted.

But I guess I don't understand why you would feel insulted. If you study this field as a career, you are doing it for money, and maybe because you also enjoy it. But once you are in the field, and making whatever you make, there isn't as much incentive to keep up to date with new findings.

While the amateur, who is debating others, researching, keeping an open mind, is up to date on leading edge research, is doing it for pure enjoyment, and may or may not have studied the exact same material a formaly educated student would have, but also may have had access to even more information. They could even be of a more expert opinion, in what they speak of, as they have persued it solely for personal interest, which means they could follow whatever education process that suited their interests best, versus a very rigid program.

I will be the first to say that I have no formal education, and yes I offer advice to others. Do I charge for it here? No. If someone asked me to train them and it would take up a significant amount of my time I would though. So I'm not sure how that would be an insult to you.

Maybe I misunderstood. You agreed with what I stated, and I have no formal education, so either you believe that I'm right, or I'm wrong, but regardless of where I received my information, should not change that fact.

Was just addressing that one statement, there are many clowns out there, formally and not formally educated in exercise science, so whether it's an ACE, NSCA, or college or university degree, it's the info provided, and not necessarily how it was arrived at, that's important to me. Hopefully you feel this way as well, and I simply misunderstood. :)

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by ElPietro


I really have to disagree strongly with this statement. I think just because education is formal doesn't really mean anything to me. In fact, I feel that formal education is inferior in many cases.

Would you rather have surgery done by a doctor who had formal, medical school training or one who was "self-educated?



Originally posted by ElPietro
If you study this field as a career, you are doing it for money, and maybe because you also enjoy it. But once you are in the field, and making whatever you make, there isn't as much incentive to keep up to date with new findings.

Keeping up with the new findings in the field is one of the chief ways to innovate professionally, which is how one stays in business.




Originally posted by ElPietro
Maybe I misunderstood. You agreed with what I stated, and I have no formal education, so either you believe that I'm right, or I'm wrong, but regardless of where I received my information, should not change that fact.

The info you provide was definitely on the mark. I have no problem with the information you relayed in this post.

The problem is, someone who is "self-taught" is more likely to make errors when dispensing advice over time. Also the person with the "formal education" is more likely to know when something is out of his/her field of expertise and will know when to refer someone who is more specialized in a certain area.

[CD Lee]

If you study this field as a career, you are doing it for money, and maybe because you also enjoy it. But once you are in the field, and making whatever you make, there isn't as much incentive to keep up to date with new findings.


You obviously have not received formal education, and then attempted to live off of that skill in the competitive marketplace. Your statement gives away your hand. Every professional that attempts to make money from their education knows that formal education is just the start.

I just want to say, that your statement is completey off the mark. Do you think doctors, engineers, scientists, computer scientists, biologists, astronomers, and business executives are still stuck in the technologies and theories of the 70's??? You gotta be kidding me.

Formal education simply provides a framework of understanding, as well as a bigger picture and perspective to other fields, so you can gain perspective later in your career. It provides methodologies of study and research, as well as current but limited skill set in any particular field of study. And every field almost without exception is a moving target.

This is not black and white either. All education is good, whether formal or informal. What you say is usually very good, informative, and up to date. That is a good thing. Just because it is not formal, does not mean it is not good. But conversely, just because some education is formal, that does not make it bad or any other thing. It is what it is.

[Knifefighter]

The other advantage to "formal education" is the skills it gives you in terms of being able to critically evaluate the "latest findings" and make informed decisions as to the validity or lack thereof of new research.

[No_Know]

Increase strength without increasing weight. Two to three times a week. Can lift twice a week. Twenty minutes at a time...

Sit or stand. fingertips on table. Hands keyboard's width apart (slightly more than shoulder's width)( like playing a piano three octaves between the pinkies).


Standing: hips over the center of your feet. Sitting: push your hips into your thighs.

Aftarms as attached to your body; elbows positioned distally.


Make contact yet have the concept of do other than touch. You should be feeling something at your pectoralis regions, your front deltoids, along your forarms and around your stomach.

To round this off for the arms change only the hands, putting them under the table /desk (if it wasn't a counter :-) ). Again make and Keep contact. Yet have the concept of do other than touch.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by No_Know
Increase strength without increasing weight. Two to three times a week. Can lift twice a week. Twenty minutes at a time...

Sit or stand. fingertips on table. Hands keyboard's width apart (slightly more than shoulder's width)( like playing a piano three octaves between the pinkies).


Standing: hips over the center of your feet. Sitting: push your hips into your thighs.

Aftarms as attached to your body; elbows positioned distally.


Make contact yet have the concept of do other than touch. You should be feeling something at your pectoralis regions, your front deltoids, along your forarms and around your stomach.

To round this off for the arms change only the hands, putting them under the table /desk (if it wasn't a counter :-) ). Again make and Keep contact. Yet have the concept of do other than touch.

What?

[No_Know]

Press without trying to press. Lift without trying to lift.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by No_Know
Press without trying to press. Lift without trying to lift.

OK, I kinda understand now.

I think.

[No_Know]

I think you get the idea. But it might not make sense to you.

[FatherDog]

I think No_Know's advocating dynamic tension exercises. Trying to do a curl with an object that won't move, like a counter or a table.

[No_Know]

But no conscious constriction of the muscles.

Steady but not forced...

Lift/push without contracting.