The first goes to Alan Aragon.
Alan has his own website, and he publishes an outstanding newsletter each month. In this newsletter, Alan critically reviews recent studies in the health and fitness field. He doesn't just talk about the studies and their results; he also explains how you can apply the study results to your own fitness goals. It's not a bunch of scientific gobbledygook either; Alan does a good job of presenting the information in a manner easily understood by the layperson. You can see a sample issue of his newsletter here.
Alan doesn't just have a newsletter. He also does consulting and seminars. He also has a great science-based book on building muscle and losing fat which you can find here.
Alan's primary goal is to deliver solid, evidence-based information, which is why he gets the "No-B.S." award for the day.
The second No-B.S. Award goes to Jamie Hale, AKA Coach Hale:
Like Alan, Jamie is a big believer in evidence-based information. Jamie states that, "The only true authority in science is science itself." Jamie his own website called MaxCondition. Jamie has written a collection of excellent, evidence-based books, which you can see here. One particularly noteworthy book is Knowledge and Nonsense. In this 483-page, well-referenced book, Jamie discusses the science of nutrition and exercise. He covers everything from popular diets, like South Beach, to hormones, to training for muscle growth. He also has some excellent "Fact or Fiction" chapters which challenge the evidence-basis of many beliefs in the fitness and nutrition industry.
Jamie is available for consultation. You can also find a large library of articles he has written here.
Because of Jamie's "No-B.S." approach, and the fact that he weighs his conclusions based on the evidence rather than ideology, he gets my "No-B.S." award of the day.
Posts
10 comments:
Thanks very much for the mention, James. Keep up the excellent work.
-Alan Aragon
No problem, Alan....I'm always willing to shout out to people who are making an effort to deliver evidence-based information
Thanks James for the kind words
jamie hale
You're welcome, Jamie. We need more evidence-based people in the industry
In the podcast "Weight training for busy people", Dr. Laskowki of the Mayo Clinic says that a recent meta-analysis showed that 33 out of the last 35 studies showed no difference in the effectiveness of single- vs. multiple-set weight training. Upon further research I find this 'recent' study is Carpinelli & Otto, 1998. Why do you discount that meta-study when it seems to cover 35 studies and your own 14? The Curtin University of Technology also seems to have done some research into this and appears to support the one-set approach:
http://phsyiotherapy.curtin.edu.au/resources/educational-resources/exphys/00/muscle_strength.cfm
When researchers disagree, it makes it hard for laymen--especially those of us who only have access to your abstract!--to decide what to believe.
Layman,
Carpinelli & Otto's paper is simply outdated. Nearly every study published over the past decade has shown multiple sets to be superior. Also, in Carpinelli & Otto's paper, many of the studies they reference did not compare single to multiple sets, while holding all other variables equivalent (which is absolutely necessary when addressing the single versus multiple set issue). Many of the studies they reference varied in many other factors than just the number of sets.
Also, Carpinelli & Otto's paper was NOT a meta-analysis. It was a review paper, which is different. A meta-analysis is a quantitative analysis of trends among studies. Carpinelli & Otto's paper was only a qualitative, descriptive review of studies published in the field. Thus, Carpinelli & Otto's review is subject to the personal biases that go along with such a subjective review.
Another major problem with Carpinelli & Otto's paper is that they do not address the important issue of statistical power. Most resistance training studies are underpowered to detect significant differences, especially given the fact that responses to strength training are highly variable. In other words, most studies don't have enough subjects to be able to detect if there is a difference between single and multiple sets.
Let’s take two hypothetical populations of 1000 people. One population does 1 set of a leg press and improves by 100 pounds. The other population does 3 sets and improves by 140 pounds. That’s a 40% difference. The response is quite variable and the standard deviation for both groups is 50.
Now, let’s say you take a random sample of 10 people from each of these populations. The statistical power to detect the 40% difference is only 56%. This means, if you do 10 studies using 10 people each, you will only see a significant difference in 5-6 of the studies.
The fact that Carpinelli and Otto do not address this in their review is a serious shortcoming of their paper. This is why quantitative meta-analyses have been performed. Meta-analyses can show trends among underpowered studies. Every single meta-analysis published on strength has shown multiple sets to be superior.
I would also like to add that the link you provided doesn't appear to work
I would also note that my meta-analysis included only studies that compared single to multiple sets, while holding all other variables constant. This is why only 14 studies were included....because only 14 studies met this criteria. Many of the studies in Carpinelli & Otto's review do not meet this important criteria.
I'm very thankful the industry has people like James, Alan and Jamie. I continue to learn new things everyday from you guys. Keep up the solid work fellas - the industry needs you!
Mike Howard
Hey, Mike, thanks for the compliment!
Post a Comment