Jamie Lewis: Bodybuilding - Art or Science?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Did bodybuilders John Grimek, Steve Reeves and Clancy Ross really train with low volume as many believe? Join @plagueofstrength as we discuss this and more on our upcoming LIVE
![NOSFERATU - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nulvWqYUM8k/mqdefault.jpg)
I have always enjoyed Jamie's work, and respect his contributions to our field and I do also understand the nature of his comments about Lyle are part of his 'schtick' however I don't think Lyle deserve the ad hominem part of his response. Lyle's contributions to our industry are some of the absolute best.
However I did enjoy the discussion!
My thoughts are that as we gather more information on the topic, something as chaotic as lifting was in it's infancy evolves into a science. This is true in most fields. However the issue with lifting is that our community is really taken by fads so it seems more chaotic than it should be. Each generation appears to want to diverge from the previous one for the sake of being different, rather than evolving what works. As a result we see massive swings in trends (high volume is good now? Let's do 50 sets then. IIFYM is good now? Let's just all eat protein shakes and poptarts) which don't neccesarily reflect a logical evolution and that can appear like we're going nowhere which adds to the view that it is an art rather than a science.
The real issue with the evolution of lifting science is peoples continued stupidity and naivety.
Thanks for the wonderful thoughtful comment Faz - and for tuning into our small show. Would you like to come on with us sometime to shoot the shit and talk shop?
Would love to see Faz here@@carvedouttastone
@@carvedouttastonewould love to see Faz here
@@corneliusblacksmith same. Love both these channels
Faz has an interesting perspective on HIT and the Dorian Phenomenon which is worth exploring. Smart guy.
I lean more towards it being art although I argue that you can’t deny there is a scientific aspect involved in training and programming. I’m heavily influenced by Lyle, Vince Gironda and Greek physical culture so this informs my perspective.
Pursuing my ideal physique is an art to me because like their sculptures you’re pursuing certain proportions which lend to an aesthetically pleasing physique (in my mind). This can differ for people hence it’s subjectivity. And as taboo as it is to admit we all start from different genetic baselines so this creative process will be different for everyone.
However in order to do this you have to be very deliberate and consider which lifts to use and which lifts to disregard. You can’t know this without consulting what previous generations have collected. The emphasis on progressive overload is also a central tenet that isn’t subjective imo.
Although Jamie shits on Lyle for a stupid ad-hominem reason, his work in the field of nutrition and fat loss is an invaluable tool for those who are seeking their ideal physique. When he was describing a good coach he was describing Lyle 😭😂
Thank you for a very thoughtful and measured response to the topic. I also agree that Lyle's contributions have been invaluable and influential to my progress and much as anyone's. Lyle, like Jamie can also be abrasive at times.- but i can learn from both - just as I can from the many varying points of view my evolving philosophy may initially disagree with
Also want to say.. I've long been leaning towards more instinctive training, but Jamie has influenced me to take it much further away from being a slave to the program. As for the stretching, when I started training everyone did pullovers and we would all go to the ceiling support poles between sets and hang off them hard enough to stretch out your whole torso. It all worked that armpit area that Jamie always goes on about. Also stuff like light SLDLs off a box, bent back.. No real focus on weight, done after heavy squats to stretch out after the compression. Every WO finished with bodyweight pull ups or dips. Noone had any mobility issues that I recall..
I enjoy your channel. Any chance of using time stamps? I like to rewatch and timestaps are helpful to reference certain points.
Sure go ahead and make them. That would be great 👍😃
@@carvedouttastone doesn’t RUclips give you an option to turn them on like a chapters tool?
@Omar1066 I'll look into it
“ The Art and sport of Bodybuilding “ … the perfect synopsis of our , somewhat varied , chosen lifestyle.
Great show, as ever .
Is Jamie “ subjective “ or “ objective “?
;)
The OG book that started it all for many back in the day. :-)
I'll ask him next week ;-)
It's an interpretative science, part science, part art form. It's based on observation and inference, which is science, but it also requires personal interpretation of, and application of, technique, results, ideas, experiences, feelings, etc.
Feelings?
@@carvedouttastone Maybe "preferences" would have been better (though I do think feelings might be relevant when you get in to hormones, cutting, and motivation).
Actually, Lyle trained Sumi Singh, who is a record holder in powerlifting.
Lyles worked with a lot of people, but he's always been very low key and never a self promoter. Guy has a huge amount of integrity
Gentleman, while Bodybuilding definitely fits the necessary qualifications as an ART. Bodybuilding is also very much a SCIENCE. Bodybuilding uses the Scientific process of, HYPERTROPHY. Bodybuilding also makes use of the Science of, BIOMECHANICS. ANATOMY, and KINESIOLOGY also makes their Scientific contributions to Bodybuilding.
Exercise Physiology itself is a Science... I'm sure that Dr. Mike Israeltel, who holds a full PhD in Sports Science, could tell you a lot more than I about how correct Bodybuilding is surrounded by the various forms of Exercise Science. PS... Great Show, Good discussion!
My thoughts also. I think there's definitely a balance - I also thought Lyle McDonald's thoughts on the topic made sense and not to be dismissed out of hand. Bodybuilding is not exclusively one or the other, but I'd lean towards it being more a "science" in the everyday application of the word as opposed to the nebulous and difficult to define labelling of "art"
Hypertrophy science is not great, the strength science is somewhat better, but I think a lot of Jamie's objections come from this being the age of the influencer. We do not need a study of 200,000 smokers to generate hypotheses about the effects of smoking, we could just observe and infer from a small number of smokers, and then test our hypothesis on a large group of smokers.
Similarly, if a group of 22 people are doing, say, barbell curls and calf raises, 3 sets of 10, with 45 seconds of rest, then they are pretty much the only population on earth doing that exact protocol. So, we could look at the results of that study, and it would then be up to the general population to test the hypothesis generated by it, and for the scientists to do further study, comparing the literature, etc . The problem comes when influencers say "curls and calf raises are..." to a population already paralysed by analysis.
I'm not really a fan of hypertrophy science for recommendations to lifters, not in it's current state, and a lot of the time it's just going over ground already established by "proper" fields, but, as we gain more insight into human brains, bodies, and hormones, with developing technology, it might have a brighter future than we would expect.
The big rocks of Hypertrophy science are well established and undeniable.
Mechanical tension progressively overloaded over time with enough recovery and nutrients provided for repair= strength and muscle increase
The rest is minutiae and is what's distracting or putting people off the "science" element
It's definitely no fkn art behind the methodology of what we do. The more I ponder this the more I realize Lyle is right.
@@carvedouttastone Excellent comment. (Also, you really suit a bit more hair. The shaved head made you look a bit severe and doesn't suit your winning smile).
My girl prefers the shaved bouncer look. I also can't afford haircuts anymore in this economy on these wages, so the self clippers it is.
@@carvedouttastone same
Remember that bodybuilding thread of bodybuilders arguing over how many days there are in a week?
Watching Jamie repeatedly stating that people use the scientific method (observation and inference) in lifting and then concluding "So that proves they;re not using science" felt a bit like that. Loved the podcast as always: Thought provoking, interesting, frustrating, funny.
(ok, 3 comments should be my limit).
Often, I feel like I'm trying to argue that water is wet. After stating the obvious, the "Lewis Lemmings" will chime in claiming that "water" and "wet" are merely ephemeral western constructs irrelevant to any discussion of science because there is no "objective reality" to begin with. The cognitive dissonance when I do these episodes sometimes blows my mind 🤯
Around 47:30, talking about stretching fascia: Dante Trudel had people doing extreme stretches on his DC training 20+ years ago. Back then, people were like, "herp derp it don't do no good, no science derp derp derp," but that was probably the first time since the 60's that someone actually said, "We need to do more stretching in the bodybuilding world." I know that I have gotten over several plateaus by spending months just doing stretching and some light calisthenics work and then going back to weightlifting. Thank you for bringing this up, I feel vindicated!
Fascia stretching ala Dante is brilliant - fully agree with your sentiments here
I really enjoy your conversations with Jamie. Please keep them going!
Also, if I took my genetics and even my health history (and what the supposed science seems to say currently) as destiny I absolutely would never have gotten into lifting or running. My physical history is absolutely trash and I struggled with spending an awful lot of time feeling doomed and like a victim of “nature”/biology. Yet I have pushed through it in-spite of warnings I may not always be able to even walk, and other really dreadful things. I’m not about to say that everyone can overcome every crippling condition out there or needs to share in my priorities, but I’ve absolutely found my abilities exceed what once seemed reasonable to me. I’m not in fact where I want to ultimately be, but I feel like that should be an ever moving unreachable horizon anyways, but certainly I’m better than I was.
A great example for the saying "genetics load the gun, lifestyle (and mindset) pulls the trigger". Thanks for relating that and cheers for watching the show - you might be our one and only female viewer :-)
@@carvedouttastone LOL! Yeah, I’ve been following Jamie since… I want to say sometime during the pandemic, along with Mythical Strength (who I discovered him due to). I’ve been slowly watching your carnivore content as well (as I’ve been adhering to the carnivore diet for roughly 5 years give or take some months at this point).
Its an art form all the fucking way
Can you explain and expand your thoughts? Im generally curious on people's ideas on the topic and want to learn more. :-)
@@carvedouttastone well obviously there is science involved, chemistry biology, physics, whatever. However like jamie mentions, the sample sizes and people used in most of the studies are bullshit. Why i think its an artform is because we all have different genetic make up. Different muscle insertions, ability to store or not store fat and where we store it. Different abilities to grow muscle and which muscles are more dominant. So with a completely unique body type and structure you should use that as your canvas and work with what you have. Nobody wants to look the same as everyone else and no artist wants to have the same art as someone else. Its an internal perception of what you want. I still think its a good idea to know some of the science behind how your body works and the supplements in the industry, but the workout, diet and what you see and want are art.
@@MultiTsbaby great thanks for taking the time to expand those thoughts - although Jamie may disagree on the genetics component, lol.
Would you agree that science drives the methodology while art is the ultimate expression of the process?
@@carvedouttastone i guess i mean more the genetic makeup, different people will grow certain muscles at a greater rate than others in my opinion. I mean I've done a shit load of chest exercises and my pecs are nowhere near the develepment of my lats or delts. Amd yeah i would agree there is science involved. I mean even in art like painting and sculptures and what not there is science technically. But the end product and how people see it certainly has none
@@MultiTsbaby thanks mate. Always value your inputs and support :-)
Your conversations are a gold mine of nuggets to consider. Not even a third of the way through. I may well be barking up the wrong tree. The discussion of whether Bodybuilding is an Art or Science has points on both sides, but I would say that Bodybuilding is a Technology. The use of technology predates science. Just as the body of Bodybuilding knowledge comes from history rather than Science.
Technology is a broad concept that deals with a species' usage and knowledge of tools .... affects a species' ability to control and adapt to its environment.
A popular defintion.
Barbells, Dumbell, Indian Clubs and rocks are the tools in Bodybuilding.
Science is knowing, but technology is about doing. I can understand Jamie's frustration with Science, although I'm inclined to agree on Lyle on intuition. Often we can't articulate the instincts. A deeper form of intelligence. We know from our gut and that's enough in many cases.
Tom Platz is the best example of an intelligent bodybuilder that relied on instincts. Later on when working with Fred Hatfield, he could appreciate the science behind some of his practices such as the stretching he did. He did it because it felt good.
Brilliant observations. Your comments are always worth their weight in gold. They encourage and educate me continually and I'm so grateful to have your participation in this channel's content.
Can I ask your thoughts on an unrelated topic regarding Conan - the speech he makes
The famous speech he makes in reply to the question "what is best in life?" I know it's a bastardized version of (perhaps) Genghis Khan, but it seemed odd and out of character that he quotes this at this juncture of the movie
He's been a slave and pit fighter for most of his life. He was then sent to the East to study and learn from those masters in that region - but he hasn't yet "lived" in any experiential-sense yet.
He hasn't fought in battles, driven away any enemies, and as for the joy in listening to the "Lamentations of the women" - it seems out of character because he witnessed his mother's death by those very same bastards he vows for revenge on. He also seems quite compassionate to the women he is "given" in this early part of the movie.
Do you have any thoughts or takes on this? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it's such a landmark scene and Millius so deliberate in his writing and character portrayal that it seems a little contradictory from my cursory viewing
Praise from Caesar is high praise indeed.
I'm honoured to be asked. I agree it is a powerful speech and much quoted. At the heart of this film I think is the search for a father that he lost. Throughout the film there are men that fulfill that role. He is parroting what they have taught him as War Masters and they have no tolerance for dissension. Shown in the rigid way he is schooled. He is a dangerous and obedient pet to them. He is exposed to many father figures and Thusa Doom even proclaims himself as his father at one point. From a mythic perspective Father is culture. Culture protects us from the wilderness and chaos.Without a father you are abandoned. Competing pathways that he could take. At the end of the film he becomes his own man after much reflection and the death of the revenge that drove him. It is a beautiful and Symbolic scene.
No one could be a man unless his father has died.- Freud.
Yes, but that death could occur symbolically. - Jung.
Great take and thanks for relating as I thought that the speech had more meaning other than just "sounding-cool" in its deliberate inclusion to that scene
Yes, the whole "father motif" is prominent in so many of Oliver Stone's older films that he was criticised as being a one trick pony when it came to his thematic approach to script writing.
As you're probably aware, Stone wrote the original script for Conan which Millius subsequently gutted and rewrote, but Stone got a writing credit because enough of his material and concepts were salvageable - the father motif im guessing as being one of those concepts
I also think the Thulsa Doom father quip was a nice troll alluding to the Darth Vader quote about being Luke's father - a cliffhanger that audiences back in 1982 were still awaiting the resolution of :-)
I picked up on the Odepial references to the loss his mother - her replacement with Valeria and then the repeated loss again of this strong- warrior mother figure in his life. His decapitation of the "father figure" Doom with his father's broke blade as the squaring of this circle
You bring such incredible depth to your work. Everything is thoroughly researched and thought about deeply particularly the context. I look forward to your enlightening review.
Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.
Aristotle
Both side of the argument are true, I do side more with Jamie on this one…the reason being is that if you look at some greats of the past or current times, even the ones not in the spot light, they gave science zero care…the science part was their bodies way of reacting to growth from training/eating and resting. I also understand the opposite side of this argument from individuals who have a stake in it in terms of their professional career or simply a strong interest. It’s great to have both. As Ortiz mentioned that before everyone had some muscle group that made them stand out, be it arms, legs or abs. That was art. In today’s BB….no art at all. Eating measured slop out of plastic containers on the go and having gut issues, they’re just suffering throughout contest prep. Great topic. 👍👍
Even if the old "greats" we're giving Science "zero care" it doesn't mean they weren't informally applying a process of principles and methodology to what they were doing.
They weren't just approaching training, nutrition and peds with haphazard abandon. There was some structure behind it
Another great show guys 🎯
Cheers James!
Jamie was so blatantly wrong about Lyle when he wasn’t using ad hominems that I don’t see any point listening to any other podcasts you have him on. Basically I know he was wrong about Lyle so I can’t trust him about anyone else I don’t know if he’s even being truthful.
And your lack of push back on him when you know Lyle and what Jaime is saying is wrong is just sad. But hey you get some views right?
I spoke with my other regular Craig about this today, and how sometimes Jamie says things that literally gob smack me whenever we're live. I mentioned how I didn't like the Lyle comments, and that I also didn't want to induce any vicarious cringe or awkwardness by calling a guest out on a live show.
I mentioned it after hours that it wasn't cool and that Lyle is one of the few that I really respect and explained how he's a guy with impeccable integrity in this shitty industry.
Understand if you don't want to listen but it's not going to stop our show or friendship.
I also disagree with a lot of what Jamie says and I'm trying to get better at the pushback and counterargument,.but it's still one of my main weaknesses as a host and interviewer that I'm looking to improve
Thanks for your feedback
@@carvedouttastoneI think we can understand that Jamie has his own opinions, and his style has always been to voice them strongly and in an entertaining way
I certainly don’t assume you agree with him just because he said it and you didn’t jump down his throat. Agree or not Jamie is fun to listen to and often dispenses useful and valuable info, not everything needs to be so serious
A pleasure to listen to as always gents!
Cheers mate! A controversial but nevertheless cognitive dissonance inducing watch for sure 😁
Most don't understand it. Ill watch then comment again
What are you referring to
@@carvedouttastone high intensity training
@@ttwarrior1 of course
No, doing something over and over then measuring results to determine effect and check repeatability is literally science. If it's repeatable you have a working theory.
I agree, sortof. I would call it interpretative science, because it's based in observation and inference, repeatability, but it also requires personal interpretation of, and application of, technique, results, ideas, experiences, feelings, etc.
And Lyle was arguing that the personal interpretation that you're ascribing as an "art" is a system of heuristics developed over time and repeated experience and exposure - that's not art, that's science.
The methodology is undoubtedly science. The expression of the finished form is the art.
@@carvedouttastone I can agree with that....but that's kind of every applied thing in real life-----even engineering. The theory ALWAYS hits reality and gets changed or updated...then people test and test and collect data and get better and better at getting it "right" so to speak. Jamie is a treasure trove of out of the box thinking which I love (I watch all the videos) but his interpretation of the word science seems odd here. I agree that "science" based training is BS for the exact reason he gives: the sample sizes are tiny and really who cares its a hobby. if you're having fun you're probably gonna progress no matter what you're doing. I'll always trust experience over a nerd with a book and an equation. the magic virus proved that the medical community is basically a fraudulent system run by insurance companies and bureaucrats so I'm definitely not interested in hearing about "the science" regarding lifting weights lolol.
@@tombennettband1485 I think it's more the evidence based community who push the recommendations based on faulty/questionable/irrelevant science is the real problem - not "science" itself. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater now.
"having fun" and enjoying your self is definitely an irrelevant collorary to making any kind of progress - just look around the gym at all the "social lifters" who show up year to year with no changes.
Motivation can be an important component, but that's its own field of science ;-)
In order to make progress, there has to be some method behind the madness - and that method isn't predicated on "art", ""witchcraft" or any similar esoterica. It's made via well established, application of principles via hard good old fashioned hard work
@@carvedouttastone So "fun" for me is being excited to work hard. This is something I agree with Jamie on 100%. Being bored, burned out, stuck on a routine that doesn't get one excited may work for Bulgarians in the 70s with massive PEDs and cash payouts but for me I gotta be excited. Usually that's a good stretch goal: I wanna box squat 500 to a 10.5" box in my 50s so I"m excited to train again. Its got me doing all kinds of new things to keep my back healthy (Rounded back stiff legs AKA jefferson curls and I"m gonna try Jamies twisting suggestions. Been hitting dips and push ups a ton....FUN STUFF) I"m using a progressive overload system: each week adding weight and dropping reps if needed. Did 350x6 last week. Gonna shoot for 365x5-6 this week. Hoping to get back to 405 for 5-6 reps soonsih. At my age you have to play it by ear ha. That's " my" definition of having fun but everyone is different. I agree with you tho lots of goobers in commercial gyms are there to socialize hence why I train in my garage like a troll. Commercial gyms suck.
Great video thanks shawn and Jamie looking forward to the next one
Cheers Gary. Always value your feedback and support