Bodybuilding and Science

[markintosh]

I've read tons of advise on proper strength/body training and it always seems to stem from empiric evidence (as in "this is what works for the pros, don't question it, just do it). I know that most of this advise must be true, but I always wonder if there are any scientific studies to back this up.

What I mean by scientific studies is, for example, getting two groups of 10 guys, let's call them group A and B from simplicity's sake. Group A trains for 3 months under a high proteic diet, group B trains with a standard controlled diet. After 3 month both groups are benchmarked for their progress (by measuring total muscle mass gain, or fat loss for example).

Anyone knows these kind of studies? Any insight into these kind of things are so hard to come by?

I think these kinds of studies are hard to come by because it's very hard to make Group A and Group B eat the kind of controlled diet that they are supposed to eat for 3 months. They eat what they are supposed to eat for the purposes of the study for the first couple of weeks and then they just go back to their normal diets. So it's hard to get a good study in humans.

There are many reasons why, but I think this is one reason.

Originally Posted by markintosh

(as in "this is what works for the pros, don't question it, just do it). Anyone knows these kind of studies? Any insight into these kind of things are so hard to come by?

LMAO...usually, that is a reason NOT to do it. I only know a couple of pros personally, but do talk to a few on a regular basis. Honestly, I've had some great debates with one of them over time about nutrition and training and we will always disagree. He can eat the way he does and lift the way he does only because he has a hormonal and anabolic advantage that I don't have and never will. But hey, I can't argue with the results he gets. The man is truly a monster so he knows what he's talking about if one shares his goals and is willing to do whatever it takes to gain mass.

There are some studies out there but not many truly effective ones simply for the reason already stated, validity of the results because of variations in how well the participants stuck to the plan.

I've done a few nutrition studies locally with a limited number of participants and other than the one that was done in my home where I had complete control over what the people involved put in their mouths and over their workouts...I don't completely trust the results. Sadly, this wasn't even my study, it was a 7th grade science project studying the value of ketogenic diets vs higher carb diets...and there were only 4 participants...not enough to give valid results

So in the end we are left with, "this is what worked for me" kind of stuff...like we have here at DF.

And honestly, a lot of stuff is just assumed and has no studies to back it up. As an instructor for the American Heart Association, I taught something for years that there was NEVER one ounce of proof that it was true... not a single study was done. We just assumed that low fat was good and was the best way to reduce incidence of heart disease and stroke...oops. It made sense. It seemed right. But was never proven with actual, valid, scientific studies.

[arbit]

Originally Posted by .V.

And honestly, a lot of stuff is just assumed and has no studies to back it up. As an instructor for the American Heart Association, I taught something for years that there was NEVER one ounce of proof that it was true... not a single study was done. We just assumed that low fat was good and was the best way to reduce incidence of heart disease and stroke...oops. It made sense. It seemed right. But was never proven with actual, valid, scientific studies.

Not a single study ? wow.

Reminds me of a (balanced) program I once saw on ESPN on steroids. There was a pro-steroid doctor there who said there have been no studies which show that steroids affect healthy males adversely under reasonable doses. He did say that for females there were some adverse affects.

Originally Posted by arbit

Not a single study ? wow.

Reminds me of a (balanced) program I once saw on ESPN on steroids. There was a pro-steroid doctor there who said there have been no studies which show that steroids affect healthy males adversely under reasonable doses. He did say that for females there were some adverse affects.

Not a discussion I want to get involved in here on this forum because those above me made the decision that steroids are a taboo topic which do occasionally lead to flame wars because there are such strong opinions and so few open minds on the topic.

But you are correct...very few studies are available about AAS use either. Not scientific valid studies. The few double blind placebo controlled studies available did give surprising results though. I will tell you this though, for certain segments of the population, they are currently being used for various legally prescribed reasons. For men, women, and yes...even children.

My first wife was on one of the "bad" ones for the last 11 years of her life and it improved her quality of life greatly. She took a 17N alkaloyd (very hepatotoxic drug) every day with absolutely no bad effects on her liver. It did keep her from being bed confined. It did help correct some hormonal imbalances. Unfortunately, it's not a cure for emphysema and apparently, nothing else is either...

[2dumb2quit]

I've gotta ask: Have some of the genes that determine metabolism and muscle-gaining ability been identified? I'd really like to be able to size up various genetic blueprints and see what advantages they confer.

[westside24]

???ok I know this is almost a year old, this goes to o.p. if people are tellin you your working out wrong because your not working out like them, you tell them there's no wrong way to workout. Sure there better ways than others depending on your goals, but no wrong way.