Why Schwarzenegger's Time Was The Golden Age Of Bodybuilding

It’s no longer enough to know that things work; it’s become far more important to know why they work. " 

One of the interesting things about the fitness industry is that, like fashion, trends come and go only to resurface years later. And, much like fashion, people look back with bemused nostalgia and wonder how they ever thought it was a good idea in the first place. In this way, bodybuilding and bell-bottoms are fairly similar, at least in the way that they are sometimes loved and sometimes hated by the industries they represent. And, unfortunately, bodybuilding has been hated on for far too long. (The same can be said of bell-bottoms, I suppose, but I’ve taken this analogy too far already.) 

The unfortunate thing about bodybuilding hatred is that, in my opinion, it occurs for all the wrong reasons. In this two-part article, you’ll see the reasons the training methods of bodybuilders have been discarded and ridiculed by the general fitness industry -- and the reasons for the imminent and necessary return of those methods. 

Once Upon A Time, Results Were All That Mattered

In the golden age of bodybuilding, Arnold was, without question, both the paragon of its success and the foremost representative of its methodologies. What Arnold said, others believed. What Arnold did, others did. 

When it came to training methods, his word on what to do was generally accepted, and with the exceptions of when he intentionally misled people with bad advice, what he recommended produced results. If Schwarzenegger or any other bodybuilders of the age were using and teaching a method, there was a very simple reason for it: it worked. 

In the golden age, bodybuilders were interested in results -- and only results. That, I think, is the biggest thing we can say for the guiding philosophy behind the training methods of those days. Arnold and his contemporaries did things that worked simply because they worked. 

As a result, figuring out what worked -- and what didn’t -- was a driving force that pushed our entire knowledge of training forward. Over the course of months or years, methods, systems and programs emerged. If Arnold was interested in new or unusual approaches, he tried them out. If it could possibly yield results, it was worth testing; after a while, the ideas were either incorporated into the overarching umbrella philosophy of what was effective or discarded altogether. All that mattered was that it worked. 

For better or worse, that was not to last. 

Raw Deal: Research Takes Center Stage, Bodybuilders Fall To The Wayside

In many ways, bodybuilders of that era did not differ very much from many coaches and trainers of today: We develop theories based on existing evidence, test these hypotheses on our clients and observe the results. If something seems to be more effective than what we were doing previously, we try to find a place for it. However, the biggest difference between the fitness industry's golden age and the present is the current focus on and impact of scientific research. 

This is important for a number of reasons, the first of which is that it demonstrates a very clear shift in the collective mindset of strength culture: It’s no longer enough to know that things work; it’s become far more important to know why they work. And this, unfortunately, has proven to be a double-edged sword. 

Now, before I go any further, let me just say that I think the shift to wanting to know the how and why -- not just the what -- is a good one: It fosters questioning and should foster critical thinking. Of course I see great value in research, and all of my more advanced programs are based on concepts that I was either made aware of or was able to validate through literature. The ability to test the gym-generated theories in a controlled environment helps us see what works. 

All of that's great, and should help the industry at large -- but, as it turns out, for all the good the focus on studies and lab testing has done, there has also been a fair bit of harm. You see, over the course of the past two decades, research has gained an almost deific status in the fitness industry. Studies are considered by many to be the final word on any issue, and this has led to unforeseen consequences: being blind to everything else. 
This is an obvious problem -- you have personal trainers and coaches who get so wrapped up in the value of studies that they fail to see value in anything else, and, by extension, immediately devalue anything that hasn’t been tested in a research lab or published in a peer-reviewed journal. If it hasn’t been thoroughly researched, it can be overlooked or thought worthless, at least in the eyes of a certain subset of coaches in the industry. 

To give you some context, let’s go back to the golden age bodybuilders for a moment. Without question, it’s obvious that when it comes to training, they got a number of things wrong. But they also got a lot right. Unfortunately, much of what they got right (or nearly right) has been attacked and rejected, simply because there was no hard data to back it up -- only anecdotal (and obvious) reports of results. 

As research was given higher and higher esteem, it became acceptable to lambast methods that were supported solely by observation. In a very real sense, it became almost en vogue to publicly tear down and mock methods or theories that couldn’t be (or, at least, hadn’t been) proved effective in a controlled academic environment. 

Those who were too dependent on research and the idea of research would laugh at the idea that you should do different exercises to target different areas of the chest, or change hand position to hit the biceps differently. 

Now, there wasn't a lot of research to back those ideas up at that point, and while that might seem like fairly straightforward reasoning, science zealots were, for a time, so intent on tearing town "conventional bodybuilding wisdom" that they lost sight of something truly important: that it worked. 

Just because there aren't seven studies backing something up doesn't mean it doesn't work. In many, many cases, the gym is a bit ahead of the lab. Again, studies are important -- the issue isn’t wanting to base things on research or wanting to prove things with research; the issue is that when only one stream of information is willingly incorporated into the viewpoint, the potential for growth and change will be severely limited, both personally and within the industry. Let’s take a look at where this has led. 

Collateral Damage: The Rise (And Fall) Of Broscience

Eventually, the growing dependence on research as the sole marker of both credibility and efficacy reached its tipping point. Put bluntly, it became “cool” to make fun of a number of ideas that Arnold and company touted as fact. 

More damagingly, it was no longer just coaches and scientists. The condescension aggressively applied to theories based only on observation skyrocketed and bled its way into message boards, discussion forums and the general culture of fitness as a whole -- and so it was then that the term “broscience” came into being. 

I must assume that there are some people who may not know this term, so a brief explanation is in order: Essentially, broscience is a term applied to claims or reasoning based on (potentially flawed) logic instead of evidence that has been proven in an academic setting. While this is not a new term -- the first online usage that I have found is dated November 2001 -- broscience has only really become part of the common fitness vernacular over the past four or five years. 

The important thing to realize is that because of a push toward research and against everything else, the pendulum has swung to the extent that "broscience" has become an insult and is hurled at anyone who makes claims or assertions that they can’t immediately back up with citations. As you might imagine, the use of this term as an insult has further widened the rift in the community between those who are interested only in what works and those who are primarily interested in what they can prove.

As you'll see in part two of this article, which will be published next Monday, scientists owe bodybuilders an apology.

Read more:http://www.askmen.com/sports/bodybuilding/why-everything-old-is-new-again-2.html

Tweet