markoola said:
Study referenced by Free and debunked because the link was found on Mercola's website:
Cleveland Clinic. Yup...sorry, no quacks here. But oh wait...it doesn't agree with your "standard" for evidence does it? I'm sure this violates some sort of "rule of argumentation" that, by the way, is ridiculous how you bring up everytime you want to discount someone's argument.
DVR works. Bodyweight works. Weights work. Which is better? Depends on your goals, interests, ability, availability to equipment, etc.
Also, just because science doesn't currently recognize a theory or concept doesn't make it invalid. Just because there aren't a boatload of studies indicating something is true doesn't mean it isn't worth EXPLORING or experimenting with, especially if the downside is negligible.
Barry Marshall theorzied that bacteria cause some stomach ulcers. He was RIDICULED for years by the scientific "establishment" and eventually DRANK said bacteria, got the ulcer and cured himself with antibiotics to prove his point to his colleagues. At any rate, he was proven correct and the theory is accepted today (Rosenfeld, 1997).
I'm not using that argument to say that we can just believe anything, but in the case of DVR and other body weight exercise systems (ie Zen and the Art of Self Resistance), there is certainly enough ANECDOTAL evidence (and remember, most scientific theories start out being INSPIRED by anecdotal evidence or observation, which is then TESTED scientifically) to warrant further study/experimentation by those who are interested.
-markoola
Good points Markoola. Incidentally, I didn't "debunk" free's argument, I merely pointed out that his "reference" provided no references, just claims.
The following will delve a little into my own anecdotal support for that theory, but also look at it from the perspective I have taken from the argument.
I am aware of the power of the mind. I fully believe that we can become stronger through intense visualization, but probably not for the same reasons that are being touted in this thread. My unsupported theory is that people can't lift certain weights because they believe that they can't. Visualization can help you by allowing you to lift to your potential.
For example, on heavy squats I used to have a "block" for doing anything over 315, yet I could rep out with 315, so I knew I was capable of more. My goal at the time was to break the 405 barrier. I used a combination of actual training and some "tricks" to remove my fear of heavier weight. I would load the bar with 500 pounds and just unrack the weight. I wouldn't squat with it... Just held it for a minute. When I racked it and stripped weight down to 405, it mentally felt lighter, and eventually I reached a point that I just knew that I could go down into a squat with that weight and come back up. I know that my boundary to cross was mental, not physical.
The study you cited only looked at single joint flexion by the way, and did not speak to my argument that you cannot possibly load all the muscles in the chain required to perform a complex movement. And I am still not convinced that by doing mental exercises ALONE that one can actually strengthen in the same way as they can with actual weight. First of all, if you have never loaded your body, how can you have a mental frame of reference to even know if you are working the muscles in the same way?
I think that visualization can have a positive impact for people who train on weights, but replacing actual lifting with "mental lifting" is gobbly gook (to use a really technical term"). Your study actually supports my comment in its very title:
A Potential Supplement to Your Normal Exercise Routine.
Not a replacement, but a supplement
Although healthy people can use mental contractions, it will never replace a regimen of daily vigorous exercise, including conventional resistance training. Combining mental and physical exercises, however, may produce the best results, says Dr. Yue. Adds Dr. Sahgal
It is not suggesting, as others in this thread have, that you can do this exclusively for strength/mass gain. I would also have liked to examine their published work, but there were no references to a peer-reviewed journal, which raises a red flag for me. Not to discount their findings, but that would speak volumes for their research if they did. I did notice that there was a phone number at the bottom, so I plan to call them later today to see if they can provide me with references (yes, I am that fanatical).
[edit, I just called and spoke to them. They are going to have the researcher who conducted that study contact me directly, so stay tuned... I will let you know what he said.]
Probably the greatest problem I have with replacing traditional squats, deads, cleans, with DVR is that even if you could concentrate hard enough to flex all the right muscles, you could never contract them in the same way, i.e. QUICKLY. Power is developed by learning how to contract a muscle at maximum velocity. The faster the contraction, the higher one can jump, the faster one can run, ect. Granted, I am focused on function and performance, where you guys seem mainly focused on physical appearance.
Addressing your last comments, they are spoken like a true apologist for bad science. I hate to pull this back up, but it is a classic "non sequiter"... What you are doing is using their success - in spite of their non-traditional journey to the truth - as justification for your theory, which is completely unrelated to boot. I personally find that technique to be manipulative.
there is certainly enough ANECDOTAL evidence (and remember, most scientific theories start out being INSPIRED by anecdotal evidence or observation, which is then TESTED scientifically) to warrant further study/experimentation by those who are interested.
The key to your sentence is that through observation, scientists will set up studies to test the validity. That doesn't by itself make all unproven anecdotes true. That is particularly why I don't like people using bad evidence or dubious authorities to validate doing something that will not yield results. Why do they work on so many people? People want to believe that some special tea grown in a secret grove in the Alps will cure their cancer, and they are so desperate that they will try everything. They are particularly vulnerable to "quacks."
Sometimes you can use an anecdote in a discussion, but the proper way to do that is to ACKNOWLEDGE that it is anecdotal, and QUALIFY your statement. Everyone cites anecdotes... We all "know someone who knows someone who..." As long as the person using anecdotes is objective with their presentation of the evidence and also plays the devil's advocate to their own claims, they are using them properly. If they do not, then they are doing a great disservice to their readers as it is ethically wrong to capitalize on their ignorance.
I'm sorry you don't like my argument style. To me, logic and critical thinking provides an excellent filter for all the crap I have to read on any subject.