Well, I suppose to really test and try and nail down an ' upper limit ' , you would simply need to do some repeated scientific studies to try and determine - to the extent you can control and can maximize ' optimal ' variables - the likelihood of various possible gains on a variety of different subjects. Obviously some sort of limit must exist.
As I said before, I don't think there is a ' sky's the limit ' potential for a human being when if comes to putting on gains in muscle mass - in this example - over 8 weeks. To say ' who knows ' as to whether someone can gain 45 lbs. in 8 weeks ... 50 lbs. in 8 weeks ..... 60++ lbs in 8 weeks is one pat answer, but as you move up the scale to 80 lbs in 8 weeks or 100 lbs in 8 weeks or 125 lbs in 8 weeks or 200 lbs. in 8 weeks at some point the human body is ' limited ' as to what it can do in terms of mas gains over a given period of time.
If, given your professional experience and academic background, you have no clue as to the further possible gains ( beyond 40 lbs. in 8 weeks ) that is possible in 8 weeks - fair enough. But I would question anyone else that suggests science is so much in the dark as to how muscle is grown that there is no known limit in science as to how much muscle mass the human body can put on in 8 weeks. As an extreme example in the 30 lb. / 6 week case , and as common sense would suggest, a 150 lb. average gym rat, trained under ' perfect conditions ' cannot add 150 lbs of lean mass in 6 weeks. And when science explains why it is impossible for that to occur, then you have the scientific basis by which to start extrapolating backward as to what the ' upper limit ' might be for such a 150 lb. average gym rat to gain.
I agree with you.
I, in fact, think success in training is 90% mental.
My point is, the human body has limitations as to what it can achieve in terms of strength, speed , endurance, and adaption over a certain period of time. For example, my son can't from doing 350 lb. squat sets as he is now to doing 500 lb. squat sets within 2 weeks - it's simply impossible. Nor can he go from not having the stamina even to do a 10k run as of today to competing and completing a marathon in under 2:30 6 weeks from now. Nor, can he hold his breath for 21 minutes under the water.
So while there is no limit as to what the human mind can aspire to, there is a ' limit ' to what the human body can actually do - that's all I'm really trying to say. True. I agree.
But even champions have to perform and achieve goals within the guidelines of the ' limits ' of human physiology. For example, the hockey players I coach usually can only do ' flat out ' 40+ second shifts followed by a 2+/- minutes rest in a game before becoming fatigued ...and they can't play the entire game and never come off the ice at a ' flat out ' pace, playing a full 60 minutes at that pace - it's impossible. There are limits.
After all, sprinters can't do a 5.2 second 100 meter sprint simply because " they said so "
Perhaps, but again, there is a limit as to what those gains can be in a given period of time - whether "they said so" - or not.
Again, I will have to defer to your degree in exercise phys - why is that ?
Any idea where they came up with 1-2 lbs of muscle in a month ?
Actually, it is the other way around IMO.
I would agree that mental ability and capability is ' limitless '. and that attitude, focus and mental discipline is what keeps most gym rats from reaching their goals.
So, science can test the ' limiting factors' associated with human anatomy and physiology however. However, no matter how optimal and perfect one's attitude, focus and mental discipline is, it is the limits imposed by human anatomy and physiology that mental ability simply has to contend with.
I agree.
All science can do is say there is no present scientific evidence yet available ( if that is in fact the case ) to support the claim.
As I said before, to suggest a ' 30 lbs of mass in 6 weeks ' claim is a ' one size fits all ' potential is a bit of a stretch if you ask me. Context matters IMO. I think the claim of ' 30 lbs of mass in 6 weeks ' may have varying degrees of validity depending if you're a novice, seasoned bodybuilder, 130 lbs gym rat , 175 lbs gym rat or 240 lb rat ( all other things being equal ) etc. etc.
Would you also suggest that science " disproved " some training principals as well ? It would be interesting to compare how many ' training principals ' were proven by science and how many were disproved bu science - perhaps they're both equal in number.
Guess we agree to disagree on this one.
btw - were any of the so-called " best methods " ....invalidated by science to your knowledge ?
Correct, ' interval training ' has been around for a long time.
But the reason the Laval / Tremblay HIIT study is considered a ' landmark ' study is because it was among the first to establish that HIIT was optimal for fat loss - where as prior to that, conventional wisdom was that steady state aerobics was the best to lose fat .....via cardio at least. Science's examination of HIIT has suggested otherwise.
The whole EPOC / afterburn rationale for HIIT really took hold after Tremblay IMO. And, that's why everyone is so hung up about HIIT and fat loss on this forum - and you and I both know how often HIIT is trotted out in responses to anyone is interested in shredding fat.
Then there is HIIT and aerobic capacity ( VO2 Max ). There is no disputing that shorter HIIT improves anaerobic capacity vs longer steady state cardio - and I would say this was the conventional wisdom. But it wasn't until the Tabata study came along that it was shown that certain forms of very short HIIT sessions ( 4 minutes ) could also improve V02max vs longer steady state sessions ( i.e 1 hour )...something which flew in the face of conventional wisdom IMO..
Not at all.
Fartlek training has been around since the early 1900's ( or earlier ).
I was referring to the relationship between HIIT and optimizing fat loss and to a lesser extent, HIIT improvements on VO2 Max.
As for bodybuilders, I'd submit they were eating foods of moderate to hi GI carbs as well. They were eating healthy foods like breads, fruits, potatoes, pasta and rice etc. etc. - all of which could easily be foods of moderate to hi GI as they were part of a wholesome healthy diet.
Well, I'm not in position to comment either either way as I'm not familiar with all the eating / training habits Louis Cyr, Donald Dinnie, and Paul Anderson.
So, they may in fact have got 1 or 2 eating / training principles correct - based on what science can tell us today - but then again, they may have got 1 or 2 eating / training principles ( or 4 or 5 etc. etc. ) wrong.