I had to give this thread a re-read and at roughly page 7 or 8, it hit me in regards to how Marinera is approaching this subject, when he is opposed by Monty and the likes..
It seems to me that Marinera views the world through “science” (for a lack of better word).
The way he argues is that unless science tells you it is so, then it cant be so.
Whenever Monty brings up anecdotal evidence, that X must be true because Y happened, which is contrary to Marinera’s knowledge (“science”), Marinera rejects/dismisses it (because of Y).
I think the underlying problem is this:
Marinera is quick to dismiss a “theory” because he knows the science regarding the underlying tissue that opposes that “theory”.
But that theory was an amateur’s attempt to describe WHY it worked. Amateur as in, not educated in the field, a non-professional!
Now, just because the theory is deficient, just because the “WHY” is wrong, it does not make the GAINS less real.
If someone succeeds 7 on 0 off, he will try to explain why, to the best of his abilities.
But this guy might be clueless in regards to anatomy, he might pick up one thing or another from reading a few papers, that seem like archaic, magical scrolls to him.
So he will most likely fail to properly identify the cause for growth.
Problem is, he will be able to provide an eloquent and reasonable enough explanation, that it will garner a following, such as is happening with every bro-science here.
Then come along the medically educated people (I guess, like firegoat and Marinera) and completely dismiss the routine & methodology on the basis of debunking their “theory”.
The crux is, that they see the world through “science”.
Science seems to have become their religion.
What science says, dictates reality.
But I think the opposite is the case.
If science says 1+1=2 but I observe in reality that when I put one apple and then another into an empty basket, I can count 3 inside it, then 1+1=3, I do not care what science says…
Reality -> science
not
Science -> reality
Perhaps I have the wrong impression of those guys though…
I think a better solution to all of this would be to use the shotgun approach. We got a lot of people.
Let everyone do everything differently.
Then lets evaluate what seems to be more likely to work.
And that has been kinda done, in a limited fashion: BeardedDragon’s analysis of the big gainers.
I say kinda because it only focuses on “big gainers”.
It should focus on all - big gainers, avg. gainers, no gainers.
And from all groups, extract methodologies where we can speculate with a great likelihood, that it is gonna “work” or “not work”.
I think in that regard, we have kind of an idea already. Otherwise we would not have all these routine proposals.
As firegoat said, pretty much all exercises work with consistency.
I think the exercises themselves went through the process of “natural selection”, i.e. an exercise exists as such and is proposed & recommended, BECAUSE they have proved themselves useful in the past. Otherwise no one would bother writing about it and recommending it.
Hence we have… jelqing, stretching, pumping, hanging, ulis, etc. etc. etc.
I hope I am explaining it properly.
PS: Forget calling it shotgun approach, I think I just kinda described the principle of evolution…
PPS: For this reason, I lean more towards listening & believing what Monty for example has to say… I think anecdotal evidence leads science. Science is an utility to make sense of the anecdotal, to upscale it way more efficiently..
