BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > General training questions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Unread 09-05-2018, 08:49 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbp View Post
So I've been following this mess on facebook for days now.

I'll be the first to admit, alot of it is out of my element. The statistics stuff, especially.

I finally read James' response in his blog.

Yeah, the write up on the Ostrowski paper is bizarre. Maybe they didn't directly say dose-response, but it's heavily implied in that write up. At the very least, not mentioning what seems like a major detail (the middle value) is really strange, and something I cannot imagine myself omitting.



I get the idea that they want to express higher is better than lower, but with most things....people are going to want to know where the diminished returns kick in. I mean, that's a pretty big deal when it comes to training in terms of time, injury risk etc.

Strange stuff.
James is circling the wagons
IN my FB group he kept repating that it wasn't a representation
FINALLY he said it was. But not deliberate,.

Here's teh addendum to that: Brad and I had DISCUSSED Ostroski via email. He threw it at me about volume being better. I told him that 14 sets was as good at 28.

It is not about expressing higher is better. His paper doesn't support it, his discussion is a lie, he's using his 'authority' to push bad science.

Then he LIED in his paper. It was deliberate, he knew what he was doing. He didn't address my question becaise "Lyle was mean to me" He's another Layne Norton.

Screw Brad
Screw James

it's all bs
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Unread 09-05-2018, 09:21 AM
AlphaBettor AlphaBettor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 640
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaOmega View Post
Sorry for the delay. Yes, I'm doing Venutos classic split rather than PPL. On one rotation you have delt/arm, legs, off, back/ chest, delt/arm, off, off.

So if only 6-8 sets of bicep on two days and even 1/2 stimulus from 9 sets (@4) of back work, one can hit @20 biceps sets that week. If we took 1:1 like these studies, I would be at @25 sets or more. Which Breen suggests is overtraining.
That sequence only comes up every third week though. It's still basically an every 5th day adjusted to fit it into a weekly schedule so instead of 5 days later every time, you hit workouts 4/6/5/6 days later. What you bring up is just a scheduling quirk.. sometimes a workout comes up twice in a calendar week. I'd go by the average and not worry too much about the high week. It's certainly possible to overdo it with arms on that split but it depends on a lot of details.. it's probably worth a new thread tbh.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Unread 09-10-2018, 06:24 PM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,175
Default

So check it out: apparently, backed into too tight a corner, Brad has changed his narrative.

We all misunderstood the study.

It really said that low volume worked great!

This whole thing, and him, is a pathetic joke.

Layne norton has more integrity.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Unread 09-10-2018, 10:11 PM
loc loc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 608
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcdonald View Post
So check it out: apparently, backed into too tight a corner, Brad has changed his narrative.

We all misunderstood the study.

It really said that low volume worked great!

This whole thing, and him, is a pathetic joke.

Layne norton has more integrity.
ouch
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Unread 09-20-2018, 08:32 AM
w1cked w1cked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,935
Default

https://www.bicycling.com/news/amp23...ning-sessions/

Great. Now everyone is putting their own spin on it.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Unread 09-20-2018, 08:41 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,175
Default

A shame the study is basically biased garbage.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Unread 09-21-2018, 01:15 PM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,175
Default

It's not about the statistics and here are 7 points that Brad, James and Eric Helms (who is defending both) have failed to address

The study is methodological disaster and Brad LIED about data in the discussion

Read it and make your own decision

https://bodyrecomposition.com/resear...-krieger.html/
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Unread 09-21-2018, 01:35 PM
w1cked w1cked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,935
Default

Damn, what happened? Krieger was one of the good guys for a while.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Unread 09-21-2018, 01:55 PM
zLeeKo's Avatar
zLeeKo zLeeKo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 733
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by w1cked View Post
Damn, what happened? Krieger was one of the good guys for a while.
In like a month, all people, except Lyle, I've been following (Brad, Alan, Eric, James) disappointed me really hard.
__________________
"He never had the makings of a varsity athlete"
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Unread 09-21-2018, 01:58 PM
w1cked w1cked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zLeeKo View Post
In like a month, all people, except Lyle, I've been following (Brad, Alan, Eric, James) disappointed me really hard.
Eric too? That's something. He's the only one other than Lyle I really follow on articles and youtube save for some niche bodybuilding people.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.