weights #2398
The Weights Mailing List
MUSCLE DYSMORPHICS
by <Mcs...@aol.com>
Music - belated
by Brian Williams <winds...@earthlink.net>
NEW SPORTS GROUP
by <Mcs...@aol.com>
Re: ONE VS MANY SETS: response to Mel
by Chad Reilly <chadr...@home.com>
Re: ONE VS MANY SETS
by Eric Burkhardt <embu...@uci.edu>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: MUSCLE DYSMORPHICS
From: Mcs...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 07:07:55 -0700
Now that an author of that research article on "Muscle Dysmorphia in Male
Weightlifters" has replied publically to my criticism stating that it is
inaccurate and misleading to use the term of "weightlifting" to describe
anyone who uses weights regularly, I wish to respond further.
WRITING ON THE INTERNET
For those who descended upon me in very personal manner, I must stress that
I took great care that my comments on the Internet followed all the
recommended rules of good netiquette, including the avoidance of vulgarity,
rudeness, defamation, character assassination, threats and profanities.
When writing on the Internet I always attempt to write in the selfsame sort
of manner in which I would discuss the same issues face to face with my
audience. In other words, I do my utmost to avoid saying anything at a
distance that I would not say in a face to face meeting.
Even if the issues are contentious, I am very careful to criticise the
message and not the messenger, because character assassinations and
personal attacks are totally irrelevant to the subject and serve no
professional purpose whatsoever.
PERCEPTIONS OF THE ARTICLE
In the case in question, the authors of the article sent out a specific
message to the world at large by sharing their study through a news item in
a mass circulation newspaper and by advertising their new book on the same
topic. Their message, as the title proclaimed to the world, was:
<<
MUSCLE DYSMORPHIA IN MALE WEIGHTLIFTERS: A Case-Control Study.
Muscle dysmorphia is a form of body dysmorphic disorder in which
individuals develop a pathological preoccupation with their muscularity.
........
>>
This was what the news reporter focused upon, this is what the world read.
I have little doubt that the average reader who will be watching the
Olympics soon or in the future hears about various competitive lifters will
recall the highlights of this message and deduce that "weightlifters" often
display some sort of mental pathology. The lay public think in terms of
simple generalisations and, unless they personally have seen competitive
lifting of any sort, they will automatically conclude that ALL
weightlifters must be possible candidates for distorted body image and some
new mental disorder like this dreaded "reverse anorexia".
If perchance, some parents have youngsters who would like to take up
competitive weightlifting or powerlifting, then the chances are that they
are going to be very worried that their offspring could be setting
themselves up for future psychopathology. Many parents, schools and medics
already believe that weightlifting stunts the growth of young bones, causes
more back and joint injuries than any other sports, is far inferior
generally to aerobic training, plus many feel that weightlifters use
anabolic steroids on a far wider scale than anyone else, so that the sport
of Weightlifting often is discouraged at schools and in many families. Now
we have some credible scientists wittingly or unwittingly adding to that
list of public fears that weightlifting may "cause" mental problems.
THAT is what concerned me. THAT is why I firmly criticised the
extrapolation of the term, "weightlifting" to anyone who trains regularly
with weights. The authors of that article have now replied to my criticism
stating that they themselves train regularly with weights and that they
know the difference between weightlifting, powerlifting and bodybuilding.
If that is so, then they surely would have realised that the public
generally is not able to make that distinction when they read a headline or
see a book advertised which proclaims that "weightlifters may suffer from
muscle dysmorphia, a new mental disorder".
The authors even acknowledge that they know that many people confuse
weightlifting with weight training and bodybuilding , so it is curious that
they did not preempt any further such confusion by clearly stating that the
differences in that Psychiatry journal, many of whose readers probably also
confuse the different aspects of weights usage.
The public do not simply think about amateur physique trainers in a Boston
gym, they also think about "weightlifters", those muscular freaks who lift
heavy weights above their head using some sort of lift whose names they
probably cannot remember. The read the term ,"weightlifters", and this
sets into process all sorts of extrapolations, generalisations and
prejudices. Any scientists who are aware that the general public may
misread their findings really do have a responsibility to minimise the
likelihood of proliferating any further confusion. Political correctness is
rife everywhere else, why not a little similar correctness in another
controversial field?
FORUM FOR DISCUSSING THE MESSAGE
So, when the authors' findings appeared on the very public forum of the
daily news and book newsstands, I also chose to use a similarly public
medium, namely the Internet, to share my misgivings about the whole
situation. Had I written to the editors of the journal concerned, my letter
probably would have gone through several reviewers' hands and possibly been
published many months later, at which time the issue would have lost its
immediacy. On top of that, the public would hardly have read my
misgivings, nor would any reporter have found my comments newsworthy. In
other words, the public would have once again have been exposed to only one
unchallenged point of view.
Note that I have nothing against the research and its findings, since they
met most necessary academic criteria. My objection was the inappropriate
use of terminology that the authors and many of us knew well might lead to
further confusion in the public eye. In saying this, I am making an
unwarranted assumption that all readers of the American Journal of
Psychiatry all know exactly what the difference is between competitive
weightlifting and physique weight training. I would be surprised if more
than a minority of them really know, so, even in the closed forum of
psychiatry, the authors should have clearly stated the scope, definitions
and limitations of their study, as is customary with all research
publication. On the SportSci website, Will Hopkins has written some
invaluable information on research methodology and presentation at:
http://www.sportsci.org/jour/resresource.html
For example, consider these extracts:
<<
In all studies, subject characteristics can affect the relationship you
are investigating. Limit their effect either by using a less heterogeneous
sample of subjects or preferably by measuring the characteristics and
including them in the analysis.
Do your findings apply to people in the real world if they have
characteristics and behaviors different from the people in your sample?
Bring together the outcomes and any technicalities in a statement that
addresses this question about the generalizability of your findings to the
population of subjects from which you drew your sample. Then speculate
about the applicability to other populations, such as athletes of a
different caliber, athletes from other sports, and non-athletes. Finish
with specific justified suggestions for future research projects
rather than a non-specific call for more research.
>>
ACCURACY OF DEFINITION?
When the one author responds to my criticism of the confusion caused by
misuse of the name "weightlifting", thus: " Our definition was someone who
regularly lifts weights (at least 3 days a week) and can bench press their
body weight at least ten times. ", I am no more satisfied with the status
quo than before. In fact, I am probably even more disquieted than before
because the author concerned constantly stresses that their generic use of
"weightlifting" was perfectly acceptable without any need for clarification
and that the term "weightlifting" may be defined to mean exactly what the
authors want it to mean. This is the well known method of Procrustes that
is one hallmark of questionable science and objectivity.
Defining a "weightlifter" on the ability to execute 10 reps with bodymass
in one exercise is one definition that one never encounters in the world of
strength science or sport, so that, if this definition genuinely is used to
demarcate the SCOPE of the study, then we have to object even more strongly
to its conclusions, which do not specifically state the limitations
introduced by this narrowness of definition.
If we follow that highly unrealistic and narrow definition, for example, we
may well find that some heavier division weightlifters (not powerlifters!)
cannot do 10 bench press repetitions with bodyweight, simply because bench
pressing often forms a minimal part of competitive weightlifting training,
In fact, many Weightlifters are notoriously weak bench pressers for their
bodymass, because they are more concerned about loads being hoisted above
the head in a standing position.
In other words, according to that definition, many of those very
tough-looking enormous lifters that TV loves to focus on, would not qualify
as "weightlifters". Nor would many of the female competitive Weightlifters
in all bodymass divisions, because women tend to have a lower upper to
lower body strength ratio. Now I am beginning to wonder how familiar the
authors really are with the individuals who indulge in competitive lifting,
because it is well known that bench pressing, especially high repetition
routines, tends to be a relatively weak movement among genuine
weightlifters, though obviously not with powerlifters.
CONCLUSION
Now I am even more dissatisfied with the offending article, since the
authors point out that it strictly applied only to three times a week
weightlifters who can bench press according to a certain protocol. What
are we know to deduce from that study? Many weightlifters whom I know who
cannot meet those benchpressing criteria will now be relieved to know that
they are unlikely to be regarded as candidates for some psychopathology.
As an uncharacteristic 'Olympic' Weightlifter who could bench press
bodymass about 20 times and do a 1 RM of nearly twice bodyweight, I suppose
that I may have some problems! I cannot turn to distance running, since
other studies suggest that there may be an increased risk of anorexia
there. What is one to do? Join all those "couch potatoes" who take
journalistic versions of all those studies as gospel?
Mel Siff
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
mcs...@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Music - belated
From: "Brian Williams" <winds...@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 07:08:32 -0700
This is way late - I've been fly fishing in Montana but anyway.....
>>[So I'm in Canada a few years back and I'm using the Gold's up there.
Some local bodybuilder getting ready for a contest (sweats in June)
and his training partner had monopolized the tape player and they
had a tape that was nothing but "Eye of the Tiger" over and over and
over. One of the club employees finally stopped the insanity. -MTS]<<
Way back when I joined the army, one of the training battalions I was
assigned to had that as its official song. Every couple of months they
sponsored a 10k run in formation, and during the whole durngum thing they
had a truck outfitted with loudspeakers playing Eye of the Tiger over and
over and over.....
Turned in some pretty good times then, perhaps for all the wrong reasons.
Brian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: NEW SPORTS GROUP
From: Mcs...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 07:09:08 -0700
We have started a new Internet discussion group devoted to all physical and
mental aspects of sports, strength and fitness science and training, as
well as injury and health management. For more details of this group,
please visit the following website:
http://www.egroups.com/group/supertraining
[Who is "we"? -MTS]
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
mcs...@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: ONE VS MANY SETS: response to Mel
From: Chad Reilly <chadr...@home.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 07:10:52 -0700
> From: Joseph Brown <br...@Psych.Stanford.EDU>
> Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 06:56:19 -0700
>
> Mel grants that one set schemes are basically as effective as others for
> building strength and mass for the first few years of training for
> average athletes.
If Mel does so, he is doing so without the substantiation of research
(wouldn't be the first time). There are no studies that measure the
differences between one and three sets over the first few years of
training.
> But he notes that one set approaches have not been
> studied in elite strength athletes, that is, competitive lifters, and you
> can't generalize even from experienced gym strength trainers to that elite
> group.
It has been measured in trained strength athletes, not competitive
lifters but college football players. There was a substancial and
significant difference in favor of the 3 set group. Read the
studies I already posted.
> First, I want to highlight something Mel did assert, that for years of
> initial training for the average person, a one set scheme does just as
> well as others for building size and strength (no better, but just as
> well).
If Mel did assert this then he is wrong. Again I invite you to read
the actual research, not just Carponelli's review of it.
> That is a really important point, I believe, and one that hasn't
> received enough attention. For many many of us, a one set approach is
> just great! In other words, for years, one can be building strength and
> size on a lower volume workout than is typically recommended...
You probably can, just not as much strength and size as the higher
volume trainers are building.
> and a
> number of studies in the review tested exactly that, 1x10 schemes
> vs. 3x10, and found no difference in strength/size gained.
Again he did not review all the research, rather that research that
seems to have supported his preconceived ideas (this is not good
science), nor did he mention that in just about every study that he
uses in support of his claims did show a difference in favor of the
3 set groups, it just didn't reach statisical significance.
cr
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: ONE VS MANY SETS
From: "Eric Burkhardt" <embu...@uci.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 07:11:51 -0700
Joseph Brown wrote..
<<
paradigm recommends the multi-set approach when for many of us, a one
set scheme would work JUST AS WELL. For example, I lift because I want to
have a strong body overall for martial arts training. If I can get just
as strong with a one set scheme, and that will do me just fine for
years, why would I choose another scheme that is more time-consuming AND
is more appropriate for athletes whose sport event IS lifting? For that
athlete, I think multiple sets are necessary because they are improving
their skills at maximal one rep lifts *as well as* building
strength. Thus sets with many reps, and single sets, just don't seem to
fit the specificity principle.
>>
Joseph, above you state that your goal is to get strong for martial arts
(MA). Do you want to get just somewhat stronger, or as strong as possible
without interfering with the time you need to dedicate to MA?
Weightlifters (WL) train to become as strong as possible - which you
correctly state above is best accomplished with multiple sets. Doesn't
that at least present an argument that you might want to base SOME of your
training program off of what the strongest athletes in the world are doing?
If a "one set scheme would work JUST AS WELL" for gaining strength, why
aren't the top WLs training this way? Or are you admitting that your 1-set
scheme will only get you to about 75% of your maximum potential strength?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of weights
Issues of the weights digest, along with a Links directory, a bookstore,
and much more, are available at WeightsNet:
To contribute to the next issue, please send email to:
mailto:wei...@WeightsNet.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send mail to:
mailto:weights...@WeightsNet.com
For further information, contact Michael Sullivan at:
mailto:sull...@WeightsNet.com
The views expressed in weights are those of the individual authors only.