are studies worth

F

faz

Active Member
the paper they are wrote on
rock.gif


the reason i am asking this is lately reading different experts opinions,i find that they differ alot,
but studies are put forward by each supporting there beliefs.

for instance some beleive"because of studies" that hiit is better for fat loss, than ss-cardio due to EPOC,

but others who think ss-cardio is as good provide studies that prove EPOC isnt that great and that it maybe something else not EPOC that causes the fat loss because EPOC isnt that great after training.

TBH how can studies on humans be done correctly unless the people being studied are in a lab enviroment for the whole time ie,

if you had two groups
A) 9 people
B) 9 people

and they were being studied for fat loss,unless both groups had

3 endomorphs
3 mesomorphs
3 ectomorphs
they all ate the exact same cals protein/carbs/fats
they were all the same height/weight/age
and did the exact same amount of activity how could the study groups be compared accurately
rock.gif


and i am just using fatloss as an eg it could be hypertrophy/strength/etc.
 
No one study taken in isolation is that useful unless it is extremely carefully conducted on a large sample population BUT, over time, if we look at a large body of studies it becomes easier to spot any correlation between useful pieces of information. Both Bryan and Dan have developed training systems based on useful results from a large number of studies. If results of carefully conducted studies throw up contradictions then something is still not understood about the systems being analysed. This will lead to further studies and (hopefully) a better understanding about what is going on.
 
yes lol but unless the studies where they compare two groups are done in a lab for the duration of the study,and the groups that are being studied are identical or they use the same person for both examples then how can they be compared.

as you know there are the lucky guys who gain muscle/loss fat easily and the others that are opposite if you do a study on the first guy his results wouldnt resemble the 2nd guys.
 
That's true and the reason large studies are needed; to better isolate tendencies in diverse groups of people. I prefer to see studies done on at least athletes because of another problem with skewing results. That is: even with similar study subjects, there are not only the varieties mentioned above, but when under a certain protocol, the very individual under study can be changing from the protocol under study . The metabolic differences between diet macros comes to mind, from all the "discussion" in here lately. It would seem that no one is paying attention to the fact that the people in the different studies have their bodies working under completely different systems. Wherefore the results attained are from different stimuli.
 
Well...science, and science guys along with Bodybuilders and (bodybuilders who are knowledgble) are often hard to spot from the average lifter of who to listen to.

I remember when I was 17 years old walking into the local GNC retailer to buy some creatine...and the skinny nerd guy behind the desk gave me all of this advice.

At the time I thought what the hell does he know b/c I am twice the size of this guy and by the looks of things he most likely didn't even work out. Years later I learned that there are tons of VERY knowledgble people who are not meat heads and don't desire to be BIG but know how to get you there.

Also to the contrary there are some bodybuilders or as we call it REAL life practicioners who have never read a study or science reference but know how to get you BIG as well.

That being said there are probably more bodybuilders who dont know jack squat than the science side.

Anyway my point being the studies and research helps and it helps a lot but there are real life practices that seem to work even though the science doesn't back it up.

Im sure the majority of people who have gotten RIPPED on HIIT will not ever do slow cardio and vis versa.
 
i think many of the best clinical studies are conducted on sets of twins. wether they vary the diet or the training, i find the studies yeild better results. we know that if the exercises and diet are exactly the same, they should both have very similar if not identical results.

ive always been a science buff, but the fact is people are so diverse in their make-up that results can only be applied over a broad spectrum, theres no way to nail down to the letter what will work for everyone.

on the whole i think studies are useful, however they cannot be excepted as absolute, one must keep an open mind.
 
Absolutley,

And judging by your pics LCARS....you have done AWESOME at building a physique....even though your training frequency is less than optimal according to science???
rock.gif


It just goes to show (like you said above) that results are very individualized!
 
<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Apr. 11 2008,14:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Absolutley,

And judging by your pics LCARS....you have done AWESOME at building a physique....even though your training frequency is less than optimal according to science???
rock.gif


It just goes to show (like you said above) that results are very individualized!</div>
thanks for the kudos joe.

i must admit i learnt the hard way, spending years training hard with good form but a poor diet and next to no rest.however to see a couple of my friends come on so fast after training them made me feel i was doing things right. their diets are so much better than mine was.

i fixed this a while ago and have gotten the results i should have had years ago.

as for my training frequency, im happy with it at the moment but will inevitibly go back to high frequency training once my progress tapers off.

and without sounding too cheesy i think you are comin on just fine.
 
Faz

this is my own opinion:

According to what is written in the studies, HIIT is shown to produce metabolism enhancing for longer periods than SS Cardio which just burns the amount of calories while it is being done,and that is why HIIT it is hailed as the holy grail of fat burning, coupled with this and I'll include myself here, many of us think and with some good reason that sitting for 60 minutes on a bike at a time is for the birds
laugh.gif


I believe that a combination of weight training + HIIT or Tabata (which has a comprehensive study by the way) is the way to go for fat burning, I tend to agree and many of the more enlightenede buffs who know a bit of science including having practiced and taught it with results are preaching it because it must be workling!

A name that comes to mind is Tom Venuto, he's no BS slinger IMO, but there's a lot more, like the David Zinczenko (Abs Diet), I have taught this too when giving advice on health ministries.

Just my humble 2 cents worth!
wink.gif
 
<div>
(faz @ Apr. 11 2008,22:50)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">the paper they are wrote on
rock.gif


the reason i am asking this is lately reading different experts opinions,i find that they differ alot,
but studies are put forward by each supporting there beliefs.

for instance some beleive&quot;because of studies&quot; that hiit is better for fat loss, than ss-cardio due to EPOC,

but others who think ss-cardio is as good provide studies that prove EPOC isnt that great and that it maybe something else not EPOC that causes the fat loss because EPOC isnt that great after training.</div>
Because most are just making comments because they suppor the spin they are trying to sell for this weeks product. Give it another 2months and they will have another product with another spin.
 
<div>
(Fausto @ Apr. 12 2008,08:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I tend to agree with Aaron, a lot of it has to do with marketing, even if it is bullshit!
laugh.gif
</div>
It has been proven again and again that bullshit is indeed marketable -- you just need fancy packaging...  
sad.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">yep you have to sift through the bull and find the diets and training regimens that actually work. </div>

It's a lot easier to just register into HST and get no BS!
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(Fausto @ Apr. 12 2008,04:01)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Faz

this is my own opinion:

According to what is written in the studies, HIIT is shown to produce metabolism enhancing for longer periods than SS Cardio which just burns the amount of calories while it is being done,and that is why HIIT it is hailed as the holy grail of fat burning, coupled with this and I'll include myself here, many of us think and with some good reason that sitting for 60 minutes on a bike at a time is for the birds
laugh.gif


I believe that a combination of weight training + HIIT or Tabata (which has a comprehensive study by the way) is the way to go for fat burning, I tend to agree and many of the more enlightenede buffs who know a bit of science including having practiced and taught it with results are preaching it because it must be workling!

A name that comes to mind is Tom Venuto, he's no BS slinger IMO, but there's a lot more, like the David Zinczenko (Abs Diet), I have taught this too when giving advice on health ministries.

Just my humble 2 cents worth!
wink.gif
</div>
fausto i wasnt talking about hiit versus ss-cardio in particular just using that as an eg,but as you say studies say it is better if that is infact true.then that means bbrs over the last 50yrs been doing it wrong,obviously they havnt because they are always in the low bodyfat digets when on stage.
 
Studies CAN be worth, but they can as well be worthless. Selecting a peer-reviewed study published in a respected journal might be a way of measuring it's worthiness.
For these kind of studies to be useful they must use a representative sample, that is, enough people in proportions that represent the desired universe. Of course the desired universe chosen by the study may not be that closely representative for you, a study on muscle hypertrophy on senior citizens may not be very applicable to athletes.
When you select a desired target group, correctly create a sample with the correct size and proportions, remove outliers and find a concrete tendency you can assume that what was found is applicable to the target group (given an statistical confidence).
Now that is to say that studies CAN be worth something. Anyone can create a half-baked study to say that this supplement works, that training method is efficient and so on, ignore the sample creation rules, skip having a control group (to discard placebo effect) and pretend that they did reach some conclusion.
 
The many limitations of exercise research compounded with the body's complexity and the diversity of individual responses means that research is not the final word. It is simply the best word we have at the time. Moreover as research progresses the best practice for a given goal will inevitably change. This means the notion of the optimal, the so-called Holy Grail, will be beyond reach until scientific understanding of exercise is complete. Until then the best we can do is empty our intellects of magazine misinformation and hearsay, study the known scientific facts, keep up to date on the cutting edge ones, and perform trial and error with the resulting options.

As for the limitation you have pointed out; it is only natural for there to be dissension among those on the cutting edge. That's why its the cutting edge. Get it man? Rad isn't it? Science is a human endeavor--it is performed by people--and is therefore prone to all the frailties of humanity.
 
Faz, I am not saying HIIT is better than SS necessarily, to me it is a matter of time saved and calories burnt, lately I do a bit of SS meself but I must say HIIT if you can do it gets you there faster.

Certainly you'll never find me day in - day out in a gym wasting my time on a stat bike, I am just not that way, BB'ers, who mentioned them in this equation, as far as I am concerned the BB world is screwed and skewed by the use of drugs, they speed up the metabolism and will scew around with any researcher trying to get anywhere.

I mentioned guys like Tom Venuto and David Zinczenko, Crayg Balantine and a fe wothers are doing it with weights in a circuit like training scheme and getting results, that is not the same as ss on a bike...but man I am not in the mood for aguments
cool.gif
 
<div>
(Fausto @ Apr. 15 2008,7:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Faz, I am not saying HIIT is better than SS necessarily, to me it is a matter of time saved and calories burnt, lately I do a bit of SS meself but I must say HIIT if you can do it gets you there faster.

Certainly you'll never find me day in - day out in a gym wasting my time on a stat bike, I am just not that way, BB'ers, who mentioned them in this equation, as far as I am concerned the BB world is screwed and skewed by the use of drugs, they speed up the metabolism and will scew around with any researcher trying to get anywhere.

I mentioned guys like Tom Venuto and David Zinczenko, Crayg Balantine and a fe wothers are doing it with weights in a circuit like training scheme and getting results, that is not the same as ss on a bike...but man I am not in the mood for aguments
cool.gif
</div>
wasnt trying to pick an argument mate
cool.gif
 i doo HIIT myself for (as you say) boredom etc but i also do ss-cardio.
my point was that all the guys you stated can come up with studies that say HIIT is better due to epoc,but there are other studies that say epoc is minor after hiit.
even lyle seems to think that it isnt epoc that causes the fat loss after training but something else,so again it comes back to can we beleive what studies say,or if another study comes out in a few yrs saying ss-cardio burns the most fat is everyone going to switch to that.

BTW when i say bbrs i always mean natural bbrs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top