Cheers. Consistent application of a progressive programme is the key. So your main thrust is most important, what interests you and keeps you motivated to keep coming back is what matters. That triple looked smooth, well done!

@TobyLifely

Ай бұрын

Spot on mate - come in and lift heavier or one more rep than you did last time on at least one exercise and that's how we keep moving. Cheers!

I think people prefer the science based methods, mainly new comers, because they want to be told there is a fixed method that works and they don’t really want to put much effort in. IMO. End of the day it all works, if consistent but everyone is different you just have to play around and see what works best in practice. And it’s funny cos the stuff people who have done anything for a long time, know works, the science backs it up years down the line. Get a goal, any kind of program and fucking send it in any way you find most fun and so you continue to do it.

@TobyLifely

Ай бұрын

Completely agree

Your style of training prepares you for comps. Science based, will in time get you to the same place with a lower risk of injury. I M O

@TobyLifely

Ай бұрын

I disagree it is only recently I have competed which did not change my training I have always trained this way - I do agree that science based has the lower risk of injury because it doesn't require you to push yourself as hard outside of the comfort zone, and I do think it has it's merits it is just not my preference but as I said if it gets people training and in the gym it can't be a bad thing!

@Thepokechoprx

Ай бұрын

I feel like this is apples v oranges. Unless I’m missing something science based sounds more like hypertrophy training which has different goals than strength based training. I’d argue you’re still following a science based approached as you have a planned progression from your coach who is using known information through trial and error over the past 100 years of weightlifting. There are even different approaches within strength training like conjugate v linear progression v wave progression, all of which have data to support them. Your final point is still good, do whatever you want to do to get into the gym and progress yourself. I’m glad you found a training you can sustain physically and mentally which is the name of the game.

@TobyLifely

Ай бұрын

It is not necessarily hypertrophy but more the way you approach lifting in general, for example people swear by controlling the eccentric on a heavy deadlift, but your point definitely stands they aren't that comparable as they are both valid ways of training, just poking fun

@fender1000100

Ай бұрын

HIT training is superior to anything else as far as im concerned. At 61 im still gaining muscle and strength. Most of my peers are done. The issue not talked about enough is OVERUSE. The reason my old training buddies can barely walk these days let alone lift weight is they did too much junk volume and ego lifting in their PRIME and basically fuked up their joints. I workout 42 times a year. And every workout I go forward workout fail. Because im allowing supreme recovery and adaptation to take place. Something not even 5% of people who workout ever do.

Not sure where you're getting your idea of "science-based training", most powerlifters who are obsessed with the strength science do a heavy single of pretty much every main exercise followed by decently heavy back off sets, and then take their hypertrophy work near failure. I think the most important thing we need to learn from science is that training your central nervous system is an entirely different thing from growing your muscles, if you hammer away at triples on every exercise you're not going to make as much progress as someone who does enough heavy work but keeps growing their musculature over time with higher volume sets. However the science also shows that people who are enjoying their training and believing that they're they're making progress make good progress

@TobyLifely

Ай бұрын

Absolutely agree - the "science based" training I was using as an example here was more focused around people overcomplicating their training doing super specific exercises in a super specific way to get the "best" feel from them. I completely agree that good programming and most strength programs are backed by the science

@NageekNoohac

Ай бұрын

@@TobyLifely yeah I mean I think there's science and then there are different people interpreting how to apply that science and training, I would never train like Mike Israetel says to that obsession with technique stuff seems really ineffective. BUT I follow the Data Driven Strength people and David Woolson pretty closely, they put out information about powerlifting programming mostly informed by the current science and I think a lot of their training principles can be super super helpful and strongman. In Strongman communities online and people I've talked to at competitions it seems like their knowledge of how to get stronger is very caveman mode and I think incorporating some more science like the powerlifters do could help all of us

@TobyLifely

Ай бұрын

Yeah I tend to agree mate - it can be very beneficial especially when peaking for a max lift (much like in powerlifting) - I think where it falls flat for strongman specially is that it's very easy to get caught up on the data and making sure everything is perfect, which it is in powerlifting everything is calibrated and very specific rules so it's easier to apply the science to it. You never know the conditions you'll face in strongman so there is a lot of benefit to just attacking everything and forgetting the science because it teaches you to apply yourself no matter the circumstances. But I do absolutely agree that applying the scienced based principles you bring up to a strongman peaking for a max deadlift for example, would be hugely beneficial