Fav quotes

[Travis Retriever]

From Being Classically Liberal:

"The results seriously challenge the mainstream Keynesian Theories." Meanwhile the debunking of the Phillips Curve (1970s Stagflation, anybody?) completely killed it as far as I'm concerned.

[MrBogosity]

"The results seriously challenge the mainstream Keynesian Theories." Meanwhile the debunking of the Phillips Curve (1970s Stagflation, anybody?) completely killed it as far as I'm concerned.

It's a zombie theory: it just won't stay dead!

[Travis Retriever]

It's a zombie theory: it just won't stay dead!

Damnit! The shotgun isn't working!

[Travis Retriever]

"So far, partial reps have at best resulted in equal muscle growth as full reps in research.

And yes, that means most pro bodybuilders are training in a suboptimal way. If you can't fathom the idea that a largely poorly educated and underground subculture's intuitive way of manipulating the human physiology is not perfect, you have much to learn about this world.


As much as I love these guys, I do not consider them the foremost authority on exercise science."--Menno Henselmans, http://bretcontreras.com/partial-vs-full-reps-or-both/

[evensgrey]

"So far, partial reps have at best resulted in equal muscle growth as full reps in research.

And yes, that means most pro bodybuilders are training in a suboptimal way. If you can't fathom the idea that a largely poorly educated and underground subculture's intuitive way of manipulating the human physiology is not perfect, you have much to learn about this world.


As much as I love these guys, I do not consider them the foremost authority on exercise science."--Menno Henselmans, http://bretcontreras.com/partial-vs-full-reps-or-both/

I'm not sure if they aren't slightly missing the point.  Body builders aren't looking to just build muscle mass, they're looking to build muscle mass in very specific proportions.   The goal has very specific esthetic criteria.  Building maximum muscle mass won't get you there, you'd end up with the wrong proportions.

[Travis Retriever]

I'm not sure if they aren't slightly missing the point.  Body builders aren't looking to just build muscle mass, they're looking to build muscle mass in very specific proportions.   The goal has very specific esthetic criteria.  Building maximum muscle mass won't get you there, you'd end up with the wrong proportions.

Considering what Menno stated applies to *all* muscle groups, I fail to see how that is really relevant.
Proportions and symmetry tend to take care of itself you're on a full body balanced program (e.g. not just exercising the mirror muscles of the abs, biceps and chest) so what this has to do with the quote (and the article) I have no idea.  At it's core, bodybuilding is nothing more than recompensing your body--maximize muscle, minimize fat.  Yes, there are issues with proportions and symmetry too but to act like that trumps the basic part of building more muscle is just silly:
http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/bodybuilding-vs-aesthetics/
(Then there's the fact that there *are* bodybuilders out there who do focus on certain parts, such as the arms, like this guy:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5J5aXODTmc )

[Travis Retriever]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-us-medical-billing-way-more-f2340ked-than-you-think/
What's that, Cracked? You mean the single most heavily regulated and subsidized industry in all of America (second only to the financial industry) is screwing even INSURED people over with bankrupting sized bills and is almost to the point of being a freakin' racket and despite our lord and savior Obama 'fixing it' with only more of the same shit it's only going to get worse?! SAY IT AIN'T SO!

[MrBogosity]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-us-medical-billing-way-more-f2340ked-than-you-think/
What's that, Cracked? You mean the single most heavily regulated and subsidized industry in all of America (second only to the financial industry) is screwing even INSURED people over with bankrupting sized bills and is almost to the point of being a freakin' racket and despite our lord and savior Obama 'fixing it' with only more of the same shit it's only going to get worse?! SAY IT AIN'T SO!

Amazing how few people in the comments got the idea. Why do they think cosmetic and lasik surgery are so cheap?

[Dallas Wildman]

Amazing how few people in the comments got the idea. Why do they think cosmetic and lasik surgery are so cheap?

I think what would be convincing is if there's a breakdown of per industry (or per service) for cent-per-dollar spending in government compliance costs.

[BlameThe1st]

My latest addition to my Anti-Libertarians Can't Think video series:

[yt]i4cYiWFqOmA[/yt]

[Travis Retriever]

I don't want to have to post this here...but damnit, I can't not do it:  http://www.weightrainer.net/training/rules.html
Don't get me wrong, I do generally like Casey's articles, but this one, while it has a lot of good in it, also has a LOT of bogosity in it too.  For one, he pulls the old, "well scientific methods and stuff can't compare to experience!" bullshit we've all heard from parents who spank their children.  And made even more condescending and annoying with an ad hominem/strawman/red herring of, "Just because you know the rules of boxing and the science of it doesn't mean you could take on a professional boxer in the ring. hur dur!"  Um, dude.  NO ONE is saying that.  Get off your high horse, you crotchety, old fuddy duddy.
Does he not see it as arrogant that he believes the 0.0001% of all experiences there are that he has represents all of it?  Without the benefits of scientific theory, falsification, and the like, it's as good as any other anecdote as far as I'm concerned.

And of course, goes into how, "well, I've seen students/grad students just make shit up just to get it published--which is probably most of the stuff you'll read from the scientific articles!  And scientists flat out plagiarize/fabricate stuff to keep getting grants!"  This might also explain the fact that his article only has one reference...Folks, if you have reason to believe a study/etc is bogus, that burden is on you.  Either give a methodological failure on part of the scientists or show another study that, say, wasn't funded by a supplement company or whatever to show it wrong.  But don't throw out all scientific studies like that--when he shows the results of his OWN on his own damn site--and still expect to be taken seriously.  Because now I have to wonder if the other stuff on his site is bogus too.  It's a shame as he's the only person I know of to do decent research into predicting muscular potential.

And of course him saying, "you MUST eat something right before and right after training!" Um, Casey?  That's the "anabolic window 'theory'" that has been long debunked by the likes of folks like Menno Henselmans and Armi Legge.  It's true that fasted training isn't a good idea in general, but come on! You don't need to eat right before/after a workout.  You underestimate just how efficient our bodies are, brofessor.

And some fun contradictions--he says don't waste money on supplements...then gives you a grocery list of them later in the article, he says to avoid machine exercises, while giving at least *one* of those in his trainee exercise program, which, as far as I could tell, he didn't offer an explanation for why he wants a trainee to do Donkey Calf Raises (requires a machine, or at least a person to sit on your back) instead of say, Standing Calf Raises (done with free weights & body weight).  As for the training 3x a week thing, what about folks like me who train 4x a week...but who only train for about 10-20 minutes a session, and who are only doing a section of our body each day (e.g. two days of upper body, two days of lower body)?  And of course the appeals to authority in that section too. *sigh* Not a shred of research presented, just the old "well MY authority can beat up THEIR authority!" pea-cocking bollocks.

So after reading more of the following, I decided to post a less harsh & more complete critique of it:
http://www.weightrainer.net/training/rules.html

[spoiler]
Preface:
Okay, so overall, good, but I really don't like the anti-scientific mindset. He makes it out to be against the supplement companies but as someone familiar with folks like Germ Theory Denialists (Bill Maher anyone?) and many naturopaths, and Young Earth Creationists, um, Casey? Those woos--especially folks in the supplement isle of your grocery store selling "all natural" cures, etc, use lots of that same rhetoric.
(See #5 and #4 on this: http://www.cracked.com/article_18611_the-10-most-important-things-they-didnt-teach-you-in-school_p2.html  ). While after re-reading parts of it and reading past the title on more of them, it seems me and Casey are closer to being on the same page than I thought. And while I might have been a tad too harsh on that article at first, I'll give him something--at least he's not trying to sell me some bogus supplement, magazine full of ads or exercise equipment, if anything.
I will also point out that, after realizing I tend to come from a different background than the vast majority of trainees he's directing that article at (read: people who probably aren't quite as skeptical minded and careful with their money as they should be), I figured, "okay, maybe getting them to avoid the bulk of the stuff about health and getting bigger is NOT a bad idea."

1) Honest and realistic perspective is important, so the main crux of it gets no arguments from me. I'll say as much, unless it's a requirement of his web hosting service, I don't know of any requirement for multiple pages to be interspersed with ads.

2) Well, overall good, but just because we evolved to have the resistance in, say, our biceps at that point, doesn't imply we *should*. I recall Menno pointing out that strength curve = resistance curve being a good criterion for exercise selection and that cables and chains *can* help with that, especially for more advanced trainees: http://www.simplyshredded.com/... And even in his own program after this article, he has you doing pull-downs if you aren't strong enough for pull-ups.

3) A bit emasculating for my tastes, but overall agreed.

4) So after rereading stuff, this one still comes off as a bit bogus. Almost nothing but appeals to authority (while also dismissing authorities in the muscle magazines, etc--he does realize that the fallacy works both ways, right?) Because everyone has the same recovery ability/training experience/etc right? What about muscles like the soleus that do better with higher frequency compared to the triceps that do better with lower frequency? What about people who aren't training hard vs those going to total failure on each set? Or those with a bad back or knees? Or what if the person is working out in the late afternoon when they are biologically primed to do so or in the morning on an empty stomach when they aren't? Way more variables
there to make it a one-size fits all, even among genetically typical drug free trainees. I mean, I would probably be easier on that one if he then doesn't turn around and say, "it will depend on your recovery capabilities, etc, etc" in rule 6. Um, WHAT? So that wouldn't also apply here because?
To be fair, as Menno pointed out, the body being more sensitive to partitioning nutrients (the real "anabolic window") during your CRPT article lasting for about 48 hours.  Which just so happens to coincide with training 3 times a week rather well.  So in all fairness, yeah, there might very well be something scientific to that as well.

5) Okay, no major arguments for this one, but then as he himself has pointed out, curls *do* have a good use, for helping you to get a better mind/muscle connection for one. The classic example being someone who feels the burn in their triceps and/or shoulders instead of their chest on the bench press (as an example Casey himself has used). And for getting those machine groups that might be under-worked by the compound movements (e.g. calf raises).

6) Again, no major arguments from me. As I said, I like how this one is a bit more personalized than 4.

7) An excellent point. I should know, as I've thrown out my back and pulled (or at least strained) my thigh muscles trying to do 3 sets of 6 reps barbell squats going to total failure on each set, but without having researched or really been instructed on how to properly do them AND when I first tried them in recent months. So, again, this gets no arguments from me. I'll also add, that if what he says is true about Reg Park, damn, sounds like not even someone super-gifted can get away with slacking on technique for very long.

8 ) Again, no arguments from me, as comparing yourself to others constantly is just going to make yourself miserable.

9) Agreed. Though I'd also add "fish oil" to that list of supplements that are not totally worthless, if only because it actually *has* been shown to be cardioprotective. I don't know about the dessicated liver though. I would think a cheap mufti-vitamin would cover that. Or even better, just buy and eat some actual liver! Also, major points for pointing out Alan Aragon's Research Review. Directing us to folks who know their stuff, bravo. ^_^

10) Overall, good, however: No, you don't HAVE to eat breakfast. As was established on the CRPT article and the subsequent discussion on the bodybuilding.com forums: http://bayesianbodybuilding.co...
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/...
As long as you're getting enough protein--especially later during the day, you should be doing good.
As for the good vs bad carbs thing? On the macro-nutrient level, no: http://www.simplyshredded.com/... (a bit ironic that he also suggests waxy maize starch in a PWO shake), and as for eating the 'right healthy, natural, etc' foods?
Ahem:
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet...
http://evidencemag.com/clean-e...
Posted for great justice.

11) Very good point. Not only good for weight training/body building, but also for health in general.

12 ) As Alan Aragon pointed out with regards to whey protein in his article, "The Dirt on Clean Eating" http://www.wannabebig.com/diet... , just because something is processed does not imply it is 'worse' for you. And no, it doesn't *have* to be immediately after your workout, as has been established above.

13) Well, compared to fasted training, yes.
"You should worry more about your lifting and less about silly details anyway - and that's one of the the most important things you can take away from this article."
The devil is in the details, Casey as the article on CRPT made clear. Also, if you're bulking, as shown below, no, during a normal bulk, carbs add nothing to protein. Granted, carbs PWO is still good, but less for anabolism and more for glucose metabolism and neurally mediated benefits to sleep quality.

14) Very good point there.

15) Again, good point.

16) Good idea, as it lets you track your progress (provided one doesn't get *too* obsessive about it).

17) To be fair, this is one of the best in the entire article and I have read it many times.

18) As I said, perspective is a good thing so this definitely gets a thumbs up from me.

On a final note,
It would be nice if he would drop the self righteousness, and the appeals to authority. There's enough of that in the health industries as it is from just about everyone--especially the folks hawking snake oil cures and bogus supplements, the naturopaths, etc.
The rule of thumb that would have reduced his article in size greatly:
If a supplement/marketing claim seems to good to be true, it most most likely is + an extraordinary (marketing) claim requires extraordinary evidence. Being a skeptic is fun and useful, not just in debunking lies and making creationists and paranormal and naturopaths cry, but also in not getting scammed out of your hard earned cash.

Also, I think Alan Aragon said it best as far as science and research is concerned:

"Scientific research is not bias-free. It’s not free of financial
interests. It’s not free of study design flaws, and it’s not perfect.
However, it’s the best tool that we have for getting closer to
understanding the way the body works, the way that nature works. As
imperfect as research is, it beats the hell out of hearsay and gym
dogma."
[/spoiler]

[Travis Retriever]

http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/re-predicting-your-muscular-potential/
Very nice. A bit emasculating near the end, but overall good stuff.

The Articles & calculators he's talking about:  http://www.weightrainer.net/potential.html (corresponding calculator here:  http://www.weightrainer.net/bodypred.html )

For the genetically gifted among us:  http://www.weightrainer.net/maximum_potential.html (corresponding calculator here:  http://www.weightrainer.net/maximum_bodypred.html )

[Dukect45]

[evensgrey]

I once saw a PA from the Metropolitan London Police that talked about them being a much, much bigger gang than any normal gang could be.

I also once saw a British cultist claim that there weren't enough of them (despite having twice the number of police per unit of population that any place in Canada or the US has and the entire city under constant surveillance).

[MrBogosity]

From a Facebook and real-life friend:

"It drives me nuts that secular humanists and atheists are fighting to remove 'Under God' from the pledge instead of removing the pledge completely...The pledge was written by a minister selling religious publications to schools and should never have been given this level of legitimacy. Plus it's nationalistic bullshit schools are shoving down students' throats instead of teaching them math." —Amanda Canady