6 ms·
This is par for the course with exercise science. It's mostly fake. No blinding, small sample sizes, researchers with agenda, low duration, low funding etc. The
by mf_tomb 9mo ago
This is par for the course with exercise science. It's mostly fake. No blinding, small sample sizes, researchers with agenda, low duration, low funding etc. The good news is that doing almost anything works.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- throwaway173738 9mo agoDoing almost anything works better than doing nothing.
- f33d5173 9mo agoHow would you blind it? This isn't pharmacy where you can hand out sugar pills.
- mf_tomb 9mo agoYou're right, it's impossible to blind subjects. Researchers can be blinded by having one limb be the control and the other be the test. This design has become more popular recently and it's definitely a small improvement.
- dredmorbius 9mo agoDoing almost anything works ... ... over doing nothing ... ... initially. Progress, over time, tends to involve both variation in routine and specific methods, progression, programming, modalities, techniques, form, movements, etc. One somewhat dubious 10 week study of newbies, as many others have commented, doesn't communicate much. A further complication is that much of the hypertrophic adaptation is systemic, that is, relates to overall body stimulus and other factors (nutrition, rest, genetics, etc.). Among those effects is the net hormonal response (testosterone, HGH, ILG Heck, there's a well-known phenomenon called cross education* where an untrained limb will see strength / hypertrophy gains when its opposite is trained: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_education> (Other / similar terms: Cross-Transfer Effect, Inter-Limb Transfer, Motor Cortex, Activation, Contralateral Training Effect). Body adaptation to resistance training is weird.