Since there have been quite a few threads on the effectiveness of certain bodybuilding methods, I have written a small article as a basis for further discussions:
How can we determine if a certain method works for the purpose of bodybuilding? First we have to define what the purpose of bodybuilding is. There are two main operations in bodybuilding, called "bulk" and "cut", which can be defined as follows:
Bulk: gaining body weight at a certain rate [W = pounds gained / week] with a certain ratio of muscle vs. fat [R = pounds muscle / pounds fat] gained at the end of the bulk.
Cut: losing body weight at a certain rate [W = pounds lost / week] with a certain ratio of fat vs. muscle [R = pounds fat / pounds muscle] lost at the end of the cut.
The goal of a bulk or a cut is to maximize R. Bodybuilders use certain methods during a bulk or a cut to reach that goal. The common methods can be grouped as follows:
M1: Physical training (aerobic, anaerobic, stretching, etc.)
M2: Physical rest (sleep in particular)
M3: Mental training (visualization, meditation, etc.)
M4: Nutritional composition and supplements
M5: Nutritional timing
M6: Drugs (Hormones / Pro-Hormones / Anabolic Steroids, etc.)
The question is: What are legitimate procedures to determine if a method works or not? IMO, there is only one group of procedures which fit that purpose, the objective
emperical scientific procedures, e.g. using double blind placebo studies on a representative number of people. However, since these studies are very expensive and rarely performed in a serious way, IMO a much easier procedure is sufficient if the outcome is that a certain method does not work at all. This emperical method is described in P1-P3:
P1: Emperical procedure for individual effectiveness:
To find out if a method works for a certain person, this individual must repeat a bulk or a cut two times in a row, each time using the exact same M1-M6 except for the method he wants to test. W should also be kept the same for both tries. The person could e.g. perform a cut with a certain supplement and write down R1, then a bulk and then the exact same cut but without the supplement and write down R2. The enhancement factor of the method can be calculated as E = (R1 - R2) / R2. If e.g. R1 = 5 (meaning that for 5lbs of fat loss, 1lb of muscle was lost) and R2 = 4, E would be 25%. For a bulk, the formula is the same. If e.g. R1 = 3 (meaning that for 3lbs of muscle, 1lb of fat was gained) and R2 = 2, E would be 50%. If a certain method even decreases the effectiveness of a bulk or cut, E would be negative.
P2: Emperical procedure for general effectiveness:
To find out how good a certain method works for a wide range of people, P1 must be performed on a representative number of people, e.g. 100 individuals. Then the average enhancement factor as well as the enhancement variance (probability of applicability for a certain individual) can be calculated.
P3: Changing a group of methods from one emperical experiment to another with the result E = 0:
If one uses P1 or P2 to find out if a whole group of methods work or not, and he determines E = 0 (and we can assume that none of the tested methods in the group has negative effects) the procedure was successful in determining that none of the methods in the group work. I have e.g. eliminated a bunch of supplements in my current diet and since E = 0, all the supplements are ineffective.
As mentioned before, the calculated E might not be an accurate figure if it is unequal to zero. However, as long as the result is zero, and the variance is small in case of P2, the difference to an objective emperical study should not be significant. In contrast, the following procedures are completely useless for determining if a method works or not:
P4: Changing a group of methods from one emperical experiment to another with the result E > 0:
If one uses P1 or P2 to find out if a whole group of methods work or not, and he determines a difference (E > 0), this does not say anything about the effectiveness of a certain method within that group, since we don't know which of the methods has which share of the enhancement. Many exercise equipment companies e.g. claim that their products are effective for losing fat but only in combination with a proper diet.
P5: Theoretical nutritional or training science:
In its current state, both nutritional and training sciences have shown to be virtually useless for determining the effectiveness of a bodybuilding method:
1.) For each method you will find scientific articles supporting the method and ones opposing the method.
2.) Theories in these fields change every year.
3.) There are too many interwoven and partly unknown factors to what is claimed to be sufficiently examined.
4.) Scientific theories can easily be bent into BS statements like e.g. "25.6% increase in muscle fiber activation".
P6: Taking into account factors other than the ratio R defined above:
The following statements have absolutely nothing to do with the effectiveness of a bodybuilding method:
"I feel a lot better",
"I definitely feel the difference",
"I am a lot stronger",
"I recuperate better",
"I get a better pump",
"I can train harder",
"My meatbolism went through the roof",
"I am more focused in my training", etc.
The problem is that most bodybuilding methods are legitimated only by P4-P6, and thus must be assumed to be completely useless. This includes many specific training and mental methods (M1 & M3) and almost all nutritional methods including supplements (M4 & M5). The set of remaining methods in M1-M5, which are emperically proven through P1-P3, can easily be summarized in a few simple principles (e.g.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=232398.0). The only other methods that have been proven to work are drugs (M6).
Discuss.
