Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton555
I don't see how it is useful to make up imaginary-- that's what we are talking about here-- types of fatigue. Let fatigue just be fatigue and use some form of load management in your program to keep it within a reasonable range. Don't walk up to a deadlift bar with the anticipation that you're about to "trash your CNS." Just lift the weight and use straps when necessary.
This isn't the same as using creatine before the studies. In that case it's a supplement that people were getting a lot of purported benefit from and the negatives to using it were non existent. Using creatine was free rolling a positive outcome. Regarding CNS fatigue as a thing is a negative freeroll.
Well, I disagree with how you are using the information. If you use periodization in your programming, for example, you are applying a potentially arbitrary formula that is likely suboptimal for your gains. If you are able to use grip strength as an indicator for readiness or recovery, it could certainly be positive, not only negative in how you set up for the day and week. Call it whatever you want--CNS, overall fatigue, the why behind it may remain unknown for our lifetimes.
As for creatine, you are correct in hindsight. If creatine was being introduced right now it would not meet the criteria for anything other than broscience, particularly because even if people observed it worked they would not know why, and yet would still offer their bro-science theories as to why. It also was not known to be safe until it was proven safe, so how was it a freeroll?
A current example is curcumin. It is being touted as the cure-all for everything under the sun right now. I had some joint pain start about a year ago and decided to try taking that and glucosamine since it was cheap and kind of a freeroll. It really is not though, because who knows what the side effects could be? Either way, I have not had an issue since supplementing daily with it. I know this is purely anecdotal. I also know that it could be any number of factors outside of the sups that are causing the change. At this point there are not good studies that are conclusive, but it either works or it doesn't to reduce this specific inflammation, and that is true now before they find out with studies and before they understand why.
Another example the other direction that we have talked about briefly is Brett Contreras's studies with EMG. He just came out with another self-study on the "best" back and bicep exercises. It is flawed af for so many reasons, but the god damned premise is ridic to begin with. There is zero proof that the EMG measured activation causes optimal strength or hypertrophy. But it's measurable, right? so it has to be better?
It's fine to say we don't know and that working theories without data are not proof, but dismissing them out of hand because of it is overly nitty and hold individual progress back in the gym, IMO.
Last edited by Johnny Truant; 03-22-2019 at 01:29 PM.
Reason: proof, not indication, causes not correlates