BIGBANGSingh
-
Posts
76 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BIGBANGSingh
-
-
I think, therefore, that the first principle that should guide are our physycal training sessions is not just more muscle - but better harmony, better general physical abilities and better health. I've been looking for the right, balanced, training program for years now, and I haven't found it yet. They are all giving too much focus to just one aspect, and pay almost no regard to the rest.
Can anyone recommend a good program, or a good book on the subject?
I find that combining banana bag training w/ free weights gives me a nice balance. For strength training, the bible is "Supertraining" by Siff. For hypertrophy, Haycock is currently writing a book on HST, so I'd wait for that.
-
Mentzer's system is superb and I am making steady increases in strength on it all the time.
End of story.
HST looks suspiciously like standard volume training with a few knobs on as far as I can see.
I could be wrong, but I do believe the goal of HIT is hypertrophy, not strength. If you're going solely after strength, then that's a different story. In any case, your anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific proof that HIT is "superb." Also, your comments on HST make me wonder if you have even read my posts or have ever looked at a physiology journal. I'm not interested in "ending the story," rather I'm trying to make people aware of the facts of reality already discovered by exercise physiologists.
-
BIGBANGSingh, do you realize that you have just added several megs to the database that this forum runs on? If you are copying and pasting content from other sites, it should be just as simple to link that site.
Sorry, I didn't know that text took up that much space. The reason I didn't simply link is because I cut out some non-essential portions.
-
Here's also a brief critique of Mentzer's system:
"HIT or HD
To understand any comparison to HIT or HD use the following definitions:
Intensity = percentage of voluntary strength. In HIT terms it is equal to “perceived effort”.
Maximum capability - maximum voluntary strength
HST does not equal HIT. Except perhaps that they both have an H and a T in their acronyms.
- HIT's measuring stick is based on strength (performance).
- HST's measuring stick is based on growth (size).
- HIT is based on how hard it feels to lift a weight.
- HST is based on progressively loading the tissue.
- HIT's goal is fatigue.
- HST's goal is hypertrophy.
- HIT is based on a philosophy of stress.
- HST is based on the physiology of muscle cells.
- HIT came from the imagination of Mr. Jones.
- HST came from the research of dozens of independent researchers.
Understand that it is not necessary to train at 100% voluntary strength levels to stimulate "growth". This is one fundamental difference between Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST) and HIT. HST is designed only to stimulate growth. Strength of course will increase as well during HST training but this is not the primary goal of the method. It isn't necessary to push against a weight that won't move (due to load or fatigue) to induce the necessary strain to muscle that leads to growth.
After years of training I realized that I would never get any bigger training the way I was unless I could get stronger, but I couldn't get any stronger until I got bigger. I had to discover a way to get bigger without getting stronger first. The HST method allows a person to get bigger before they get stronger. Accomplishing this is dependent on frequent loading (hitting same muscle at least 3 times per week), rapid progression in loading (mandatory increase in weight every workout), and Strategic Deconditioning (a week or so completely off to allow the muscle to become vulnerable to the training stimulus).
HIT training takes this "deconditioning" too far. They think the muscle is "recovering" when it is actually past recovery and beginning to decondition thus allowing the stimulus to work the next time the muscle is trained. Unfortunately, the rate of growth is greatly dependant on the frequency of the stimulus. So with HST you hit a muscle at least 3 times as often as with HIT, and growth is greatly accelerated."
- Bryan Haycock
"I used HIT-type training principles before I began to analyze muscle-cell research. It should be understood that HIT and Heavy Duty are not based on muscle-cell physiology. HIT and HD are actually based on Selye's GAS (General Adaptation Syndrome) more than anything. Jones and Mentzer loved to talk about philosophy and logic, but seldom ever mentioned a sarcolemma, MAPk, myogenic stem cells, or even such obvious things as intracellular IGF-1. The reasons they chose to ignore such basic principles of muscle cell physiology remain with them.
HST differs methodologically from HIT primarily in the fact that HIT uses extremely infrequent workouts and requires that the lifter always use 100% RM weight loads regardless of the condition of the muscle. Conversely, HST incorporates a training frequency based on the time course of elevated protein synthesis after training, and weight loads sufficient to induce hypertrophy based on the muscle's current condition. These types of things can't be determined without acknowledging how muscle cells respond to loading, so HIT and HD couldn't be expected to incorporate these methods.
My only other problem with HIT is its blind devotion to "intensity." Intensity as described by Jones, is based on perceived effort, and doesn't necessarily measure a set's ability to stimulate growth of the tissue itself. The authors of HIT and HIT-type routines believed fundamentally in GAS, supercompensation, and the intensity myth perpetuated by popular muscle magazines in the 80's. All three of these principles are, at best, only indirectly related to muscle growth."
- Bryan Haycock
-
I don't want to spend my time debunking Mentzer's theories, because it has been done many times before. What I will do however, is give you a brief insight into the science of hypertrophy. Once you study and understand the science, why Mentzer's system is wrong follows readily:
"There have been a lot of questions and potential confusion surrounding HST (hypertrophy-specific training) recently. What I'm going to attempt to do is give a very non-technical explanation of the program itself as well as the physiology behind it. The purpose is to clearly present the program as an effective means of achieving hypertrophy.
Bryan Haycock, the guy behind HST, has already done this before: http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html. The website is somewhat technical, and I remember feeling just as confused after reading it. What I'm going to try to do is fill in the gaps try to clarify, practically, why the program works.
Most training programs were conceived based on practical experience and modified based on medical knowledge. What makes HST special is that it is the opposite: it was formulated based on the way muscle grows in the lab, and then modified based on practical experience.
What is hypertrophy?
hypertrophy - n - A nontumorous enlargement of an organ or a tissue as a result of an increase in the size rather than the number of constituent cells
In other words, muscle hypertrophy is the enlarging of the muscle fibers as opposed to an increase in the number of muscle fibers (hyperplasia).
The principles behind HST:
1) Mechanical Load:
Tension upon muscle cells is necessary to induce hypertrophy. When cells experience tension, the delicate sarcomeres are disrupted. Given adequate nutrients, the muscle is then repaired to a greater size than it originally possessed.
Side note: It is commonly misunderstood that muscle failure is the stimulus for muscle growth. Intuitively, it makes sense. How can someone not sustain growth if they are working to the very limits of their capacity? Unfortunately, this is not true! The tension on the muscle is what actually causes growth.(1)
2) Frequency Potentially the most controversial, so I'll be spending a lot of time on it.
The various growth factors initiated by training all peak at around 24 hours post-workout, and than fall back to baseline by 48 hours. (2, 3, 4, and especially 6, 7) Typically, programs will sacrifice training frequency for the ability to add volume. This is counterproductive if your goal is to have bigger muscles. Given the average split of once/week, this means one will spend two days growing and five days maintaining muscle size without adding to it. This has been confirmed in the lab. One study compared the effects of a volume of weight training performed all on one day of the week to the same volume spread across three days of the week. The thrice-per-week group saw greater muscle gains as well as strength gains over 40% greater than the once-per-week group.(5)
This can also seem counterintuitive, as muscle soreness and strength often do not recover after a mere two days. In actuality, neither of those factors (soreness or voluntary strength) is related to muscle growth.
The ability to recover one's strength is directly related to muscle failure. Training to failure directly inhibits voluntary strength. Basically, training to failure fries your nerves (not the technical term ) and prevents them from being able to contract the muscles for long periods of time. So when one trains to failure and then waits until strength is recovered to train a muscle again, oftentimes the muscle has long recovered and is waiting for the nervous system to catch up.
This means that sometimes, with HST, you will be training through soreness. This is totally okay! Soreness is not harmful, and people generally find that training a sore muscle will cause the soreness to stop.
3) Progressive Load
Anywhere one goes, one hears "Changing one's routine is a way to prevent stagnation. If you're not growing, change things."
We're all in the business of growing muscle. Unfortunately, the body doesn't like to do that. It's rather expensive for the body to repair and produce new muscle tissue. It requires both lots of protein and lots of energy (sort of like the "parts" and the "labor). So, when an exercise is performed that damages the muscle tissue, in addition to the growth response the muscle also becomes resistant to further damage from that load. This is called the Repeated Bout Effect. (4) This is why routines fail to cause further progress. It is also why HST incorporates progressive load.
Side note: strength programs and growth
As anyone who's done WSB will tell you, strength programs can induce a good deal of hypertrophy. As a result, many bodybuilders adopt strength-training programs as a means of causing growth. By isolating and understanding WHY they cause growth, you can just skip straight to the growth-causing elements without wasting time with all of the neural tricks that strength training uses to increase your 1RM.
Strength programs typically have people work with very low reps, often to failure. Both of those have been shown to increase the nervous system's efficiency at performing a movement, thus increasing strength. So, when someone starts a strength training program, initially he/she sees a lot of growth. His/her muscles are not that resistant to damage, and at high tension levels the Repeated Bout Effect takes a little while to kick in. As long as he/she also continues making strength gains, he/she will experience progressive load, and will see muscle growth as long as he/she is overeating. Unfortunately, after a time the strength gains will slow to a crawl, and at that point the muscles are very resistant to damage and will simply not grow.
At this point, conventional wisdom would have our trainee change up his/her routine. This advice is somewhat sound, as new exercises can put new levels of tension on muscle fibers and thus elicit more growth. Also, a rep change can stimulate new growth as well, but ONLY if the new rep range is lower and allows more weight to be used, thus loading the tissue at new levels.
Instead of changing the routine, HST advocates...
4) Strategic Deconditioning
Before each cycle, in order to make the muscles responsive to the light weights in the beginning, a period of 9-14 days is taken off from all training. This reverses some of the effects of the RBE. It allows HST-users to experience rapid and sustainable progress.
This is one of the reasons why newbies experience such great initial gains. They have had such long deconditioning periods. Trained individuals also notice this; when coming off of a planned or unplanned layoff they often experience a renewal of gains.
References:
1) Warren GL, Hayes DA, Lowe DA, Armstrong RB. Mechanical factors in the initiation of eccentric contraction-induced injury in rat soleus muscle. J Physiol. 1993 May;464:457-75
2) Nosaka K, Clarkson P.M. Muscle damage following repeated bouts of high force eccentric exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc., 27(9):1263-1269,1995
3) Smith LL., Fuylmer MG., Holbert D., McCammon MR., Houmard JA., Frazer DD., Nsien E., Isreal RG. The impact of repeated bout of eccentric exercise on muscular strength, muscle soreness and creatine kinase. Br J Sp Med 28(4):267-271, 1994
4) T.C. Chen, Taipei Physical Education College, and S.S. Hsieh, FACSM,. The effects of a seven-day repeated eccentric training on recovery from muscle damage. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp. S71, 1999
5) McLester JR., Bishop P., & Guilliams M. Comparison of 1 and 3 day per week of equal volume resistance training in experienced subjects. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp.S117 1999
6)MacDougall JD, Gibala MJ, Tarnopolsky MA, MacDonald JR, Interisano SA, Yarasheski KE. The time course for elevated muscle protein synthesis following heavy resistance exercise.
Can J Appl Physiol. 1995 Dec;20(4):480-6.
7)Phillips, S. M., K. D. Tipton, A. Aarsland, S. E. Wolf, and R. R. Wolfe. Mixed muscle protein synthesis and breakdown after resistance exercise in humans. Am. J. Physiol. 273 (Endocrinol. Metab. 36): E99-E107, 1997"
- Calkid of the HST Forums
"In order of importance:
1) Satellite cells must be activated, differentiated, and fuse with existing fibers, donating their nuclei.
2) Mechanical stress must be transmitted to the sarcolemma (mechanotransduction) and contractile protein structures within the sarcomeres. This will trigger focal adhesion kinases (FAK) that in turn initiate the downstream signaling events leading to an increase in the contractile and cytoskeletal protein expression/synthesis.
3) pH and oxidative stress must be acutely increased within the muscle fiber.
Focusing just on the workout, this pretty much sums it up. If #1 doesn’t happen, you will not grow…ever. If number two doesn’t happen, you will grow a little, but you will soon reach the limits of the sarcoplasmic/nuclear ratio and growth will stop. If #3 doesn’t happen, you will still grow quite significantly, but the rate of growth might be enhanced or facilitated if #3 is achieved.
#1 is achieved when a certain level of microtrauma is experienced by the fibers. This is brought about by load, eccentric contractions, and to a much lesser extent, hypoxia (A.K.A. #3) When load, eccentric contractions and #3 occur, each fiber will produce and release muscle specific-IGF-1 (sometimes called mechano-growth factor) The IGF-1 in turn seeps out of leaky sarcolemmas and acts on nescient satellite cells to initiate #1. Microtrauma is rapidly reduced from workout to workout (Repeated bout effect) thereby limiting the effectiveness of any given load to induce further hypertrophy.
#2 is achieved by loading a muscle that is actively contracting.
#3 is achieved by contracting a muscle (doing reps) until you create an oxygen deficit and subsequent hypoxic byproducts (e.g. lactate and oxygen radicals).
The afore mentioned physiological principles of muscle growth are what we follow in order to ensure that 1,2 and 3 happen.
First let me clarify that HST is based on physiologically sound principles not numbers. In short, they are:
• Progressive load
• Training volume
• Training frequency
• Conditioning (Repeated Bout effect)/Strategic Deconditioning
So we are dealing with 4 basic issues, Load, Volume, Frequency and Conditioning. Within these basic factors we have reps, sets, and rest. HST differs from previous training methods in many aspects, but particularly in how it incorporates knowledge of how the “cell” physiologically responds to the training stimulus in its methodology. Previous methods focus on effort (A.K.A Intensity), current voluntary strength, and psychological factors such as fatigue and variety.
• The number of Reps is determined by the minimum effective load (this changes over time based on Conditioning)
• The number of Sets is determined by the minimum effective volume (this changes over time according to current load and Conditioning.)
• The Rest between sets is determined by the amount of time required to regain sufficient strength to successfully achieve the minimum effective Volume.
• The Frequency (rest between workouts) is determined by the ability of the CNS to recover sufficiently to maintain baseline “health” indicators. It is also determined by the time course of genetic expression resultant from the previous workout.
• The interval of Strategic Deconditioning (SD) is determined by the time course of adaptation to the individuals maximum weight loads. In other words, SD is required to reset growth potential after plateauing. The duration of SD is determined by the level of conditioning attained during the training cycle.
Mechanical tension on the protein structures of the muscle cells is the primary stimulus for hypertrophy. This tension can elicit anabolic processes with or without damaged to the cell membrane. However, some damage to the cell membrane seems to be critical for the action of autocrine and paracrine growth factors (FGF, IGF-1, etc). Without the activity of these growth factors outside the cell there will be no increase in myonuclei, and thus no significant increase the the volume and/or number of the cells.
Some improvements in muscle cell function do occur even if the number of myonuclei remains the same. These won't lead to significant hypertrophy though. These improvements in muscle cell functional capacity involve ERK1/2. This is the pathway activated most when you get an intense burn and/or train to failure.
Muscle "activity" such as the typical repetition, and the metabolic byproducts and change in the internal millieu of the cell also "contribute" to hypertrophy, but only indirectly. Reps, and fatigue activate signaling proteins and transcription factors that increase protein synthesis. This increase in protein synthesis allows an increase in crucial enzymes, receptors (yes even androgen receptors), membrane and structural proteins. Remember that protein breakdown is also accelerated so the net effect is most often merely a maintenance of muscle protein levels. This is what goes on after each workout when plateauing after years of training.
As mentioned, without the activity of IGF-1 and FGF outside of the cell, satellite cells will not contribute significantly to hypertrophy. The process is dependant on microtrauma at some degree.
Studies have shown that the ability of a given amount of tension to elicit hypertrophy decreases over time in a given muscle. This is because the same adaptive process that leads to muscle growth, also leads to resistance to the stimulus of muscle growth. It has a lot to do with the principle of homeostasis, in other words, the body will always fight further change as it’s changing.
Studies have shown too much microtrauma is a bad thing. The rapid infiltration of immune factors (the primary cause of DOMS) actually causes significant breakdown of muscle proteins and the death of some cells.
Now, the ability of mechanical tension to cause microtrauma to the cell membrane is dependant on the condition of the extracellular matrix. If it is robust as a result of chronic strain, is will take an unaccustomed load to induce any trauma. Your ability to apply this load is dependant on your voluntary strength. Your body is able to protect your muscle cells from microtrauma even when using max loads. It isn't always able to protect tendons.
Anytime you do a set and it burns like crazy (painful burn) you are creating the same conditions of the occlusion studies. In other words, its not that the effects seen in this study don't happen without cutting off the blood supply, they do depending on the type of set. I would guess the vascular occlusion is increasing phosphorylation of MAPKerk1/2. erk1/2 appears to be more sensitive to acidosis, and oxygen radicals, both of which would be increased by lack of blood flow. Although less of a contributor than p38, erk1/2 does appear to contribute to hypertrophy.
Keep in mind that as a muscle contracts, it squeezes the blood out from the blood vessels around it. That is why your blood pressure goes up as large muscle groups contract (even clenching your fists actually raises blood pressure). This is also why pilots learn to contract their musculature to keep from passing out during high G-forces.
Contracting and relaxing a muscle acts like a blood-pump and plays a role in proper function of the cardiovascular system during exercise.
As was mentioned earlier, if you can increase the level of metabolic byproducts, decrease the pH and increase the level of oxygen radicals you will "help" to stimulate hypertrophy. However, this is not sufficient to elicit significant hypertrophy in the absence of progressive loading. In other words, flexing your muscles until they really burn won't really make you grow all that well. But combine it with progressive load and you will facilitate growth.
There is an excellent issue of The Journal of Pysiology that ties in the participation of mechanical strain vs Metabolic strain to muscle hypertrophy. In the issue you will get good explanations of mechanotransduction and how it relates to genetic expression leading to muscular hypertrophy. Its a must read for anybody into the science of contraction induced hypertrophy. J Phys Vol 535 No.1
There are studies showing passive stretch eliciting a greater influence on erk1/2, and less so on p38.
Passive stretch puts the strain of the load on “structural” proteins (both collagenous and otherwise) and the cell membranes. When the fibers contract, it shifts the load to the contractile proteins (myosin, actin, z-discs, etc). This appears to be crucial for activation of p38, which of course leads to significant fiber hypertrophy.
I still like the loaded stretching. I do it where I can, shrugs, incline curls, chins, etc. But not all movements lend themselves to this kind of stretching.
Whether actual detrimental disruption of the structural proteins is required for growth or not is a good question. But what is not in question, is that mechanical (as opposed to metabolic) strain is required. The load must be transfered through mechanotransduction to the cell membrane and contractile structures.
I have used "muscle damage", "microtrauma" and "tissue strain" interchangeably...just easier to grasp I guess.
I would have to argue with the concept of the need for inflammation. With the release (autocrine & paracrine) of intracellular IGF-1 and subsequent activation of satellite cells, inflammation per say isn't required at all...
So, erk1/2 is phosphorylated in response to a drop in pH (lactic acid) and increase oxygen radicals. These are the two primary effects of metabolic activity. Thus, the cell will respond by increasing its metabolic and oxidative capacity in response to increases in erk1/2 and its associated transcriptional factors.
p38 on the other hand is not really effected by either pH or oxygen radicals. It is phosphorylated in respnse to strain on the contractile proteins in a muscle cell. This is why moderate "passive" stretch has little effect on muscle cells in-vitro.
In-vivo is a different situation using stretch. Animal models using stretch are not true stretch conditions because the animal will contract the muscles being stretched. The stretch is like holding onto a set of dumbells for days at a time. You will naturally contract against the pull of the weight by contracting the traps, even if it isn't hard enough to actually shrug the shoulders, you will hold a static contraction as long as you can. Make sense?
This is why in animal stretch studies you see significant hypertrophy associated with both erk1/2 and p38 activity."
- Bryan Haycock
For more information, go here:
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/articles.html
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bi...cgi?act=SF;f=13
-
This will be my last post on this thread for aforementioned reasons. There's more than enough scientific evidence to conclude that HST (i.e. its principles) is true and proven. When you increase frequency, you drop volume to avoid overtraining. There's nothing wrong w/ dropping "intensity;" HST purposely starts w/ (after a deconditioning period) a minimal load (i.e. "intensity") in order to ensure progressive load. Consult the HST website for detailed explanations of its view on frequency, volume, overtraining, "intensity"/load, etc. It's true that HST uses the same volume as traditional split routines, but it spreads out that volume over the course of a week to maintain high frequency.
-
This is now moving slightly off topic but I just had a look at your recommended system and I am not impressed.
Still if it works for you then you clearly have far better recuperative powers than i do and you can clearly get away with training at much lower intensity than I need to.
Like you said, this is not an appropriate place to discuss exercise physiology. If you're interested in debating the science of hypertrophy, I'd recommend you do it on HST's forums.
However, I don't understand why you wouldn't be "impressed" by scientific evidence, although you seem to be "impressed" by Mentzer's speculation. We're all built the same; the principles of muscle growth do not change from person to person (just like philosophic principles). HST is true and proven - I don't know why you'd want to evade it.
-
Is your caps lock button knackered?
There is also the possibility pointed out by Mike Mentzer when asked why most people, who work out, still don't use his Heavy Duty weightlifting system and that is, "because they are just stupid".
Unfortunately, Mentzer *was* wrong. I find that Objectivists interested in weightlifting tend to follow Mentzer's system. It's time to recognize that being an Objectivist doesn't make you a good exercise physiologist.
-
Why did Rand endorse the slander and libel laws? Why are they considered initiations of physical force?
-
I know a few Sikhs but have never found any particluar pro reason approach in them. In my experience, Sikhism is just another religion. But perhaps you know something I don't, being a Sikh yourself. Just what are the pro reason element in Sikh "Philosophy" ?
Here's what Matt Ludin (ARI) wrote to me: "The response I get from India has been surprisingly great compared to any other foreign country."*Mainstream* Sikhi is "just another religion." The majority of "Sikhs" don't understand what Sikhi really is - you can compare it to the majority of philosophers not understanding what Objectivism really is. That is why I said Sikh "culture" is *not* pro-reason. Sikh philosophy on the other hand, if it is correctly interpreted, *is* pro-reason. chahal.info gives elaboration on the pro-reason elements of Sikhi. And to clarify, I agree w/ certain ideas of the Sikh Gurus, but reject Sikhi. I don't like labels, but I would feel comfortable calling myself an Objectivist, since I agree w/ the fundamental principles.
-
I'm not very familiar with Sikh culture. Is it based on the supremacy of reason? It does seem there are a lot of Objectivists in India.
As for myself, I discovered Objectivism through The Fountainhead, after joining the Army. I graduated from high school in 1980, and never once heard Ayn Rand's name mentioned in school. (Things are different now, thankfully, with the essay contests, etc.) The philosopher who most influenced me prior to AR was Nietzsche. So AR was the antidote to Nietzsche's subjectivism for me.
Sikh "culture?" No. Sikh philosophy (correctly interpreted)? Yes. It primarily provides epistemological (pro-reason) guidance. chahal.info has the most accurate presentation of Sikhi if you're interested.
I had no idea there were a lot of Objectivists in India. Any idea why that is so?
-
I was born and raised a Sikh, so I've always recognized the supremacy of reason. Then after reading Rand, I consistently applied reason to my philosophy.
-
BigBang
I guesss youll need to be more specific about why you are interested in these books...
If you are interested in research that proves that objectivist principles can be applied well to people seeking psychological help, you should probably check out the works of Aaron Beck or Albert Ellis....
If you want to gain a broad understanding of the major schools of thought/research within psychology, an introductory text would help.
If you are interested in self help, most any of the books above could help...
etc etc etc
Well, I'm interested in both Psycho-Epistemology & Self-Esteem, hence my query on Pinker's & Branden's books.
-
What about Pinker's "How the Mind Works" or "The Blank Slate?" Any good?
-
Ellis does apparently denounce objectivism,(and is not an objectivist) but mostly just what he saw as its "dogmatic" audience. As far as actual psychologists writing books, Ellis is one of the closest practitioners you can get to an objectionist.
I guess the importance of Ellis is that he is considered the founder of the "cognitivist" school of psychology, which draws strongly on Objectivist principles, some of which I mentioned.
In atlas shrugged Rand mentions psychologists that are critisized because "they dared to suggest that men can think"
This is essentially what a cognitivist does. A cognitivist essentially believes that the chronology of things goes like this;
A)The environmental stimuli comes first (such as a Girlfriend telling you its over)
the Perception/Interpretation comes next (you decide it means nobody wants to date you or you decide it means that its over with her but you will still keep going and your life will be just fine you will find someone else to date)c) the behavioral response comes next.
This is very much in line with an objectivist understanding of how people work. If you are capable of writing off what Ellis perceived as dogmatism as a mistake in thinking, you can accept most of the rest of his work as grounded in objectivist principles.
If however this does not work for you you might want to look at the work of Aaron Beck.
Would you consider this his best and most comprehensive book?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books
-
David Harriman, an Objectivist, is working on a book on the history of physics called The Anti-Copernican Revolution. But it isn't available yet, and I don't know when it will be.
Yeah, I plan on getting this, and am also looking forward to "Induction in Physics & Philosophy" by Peikoff & Harriman.
-
Nathaniel Branden has written many books on Psychology which integrate well with Objectivism. "The 5 Pillars of Self Esteem" and "Honoring the Self" are his 2 best selling works, I believe.
From sources I trust I hear his only good book is really "The Psychology of Self-Esteem," and the rest of his stuff is kind of junk. Anyone want to confirm/deny this?
-
I thought Albert Ellis denounces Objectivism?
-
What is meant by the "right to privacy?" Is it a valid right? Why or why not?
-
You should hear him criticize me in person - he's brutal
(Just kidding Greg
) -
"I've heard Objectivists criticized for misinterpreting Kant, can anyone whose studied Kant comment on what the basis of these criticisms and on whether they have any merit?"
(Original inquiry has been rephrased thanks to GCS' suggestions.)
-
His diagrams are based on his book "The Art of Reasoning." I believe they help people understand the underlying logical structure.
-
Has anyone read "The Logical Structure of Objectivism" by David Kelley & William Thomas? If so, what are your thoughts on it? Personally, I think it is an excellent contribution to Objectivist literature.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivi...ctivism-lso.asp
-
Does anyone know when the following books will be published?:
(A book on the nature of consciousness) by Harry Binswanger
"Induction in Physics and Philosophy" by Leonard Peikoff
"The Anti-Copernican Revolution" by David Harriman
Objective Bodybuilding
in Psychology and Self Improvement
Posted
Training for hypertrophy w/o understanding basic muscle-cell physiology is tantamount to formulating an ethical code w/o studying man's nature. If you don't think you need to study the science, then nothing I say will change your mind. I've lost interest in debating this thread any further. Exercise physiologists are discovering the facts of hypertrophy - either keep up to date on the research or listen to others who have.