When Jamie was in the beginning stages of writing Knowledge & Nonsense, I encouraged him to cover as many misunderstood & uninvestigated topics as possible. What resulted was an amazing brainstorm of ideas that could barely be contained within a manuscript more lengthy than many college texts. Read More...
Excerpt below- from Knowledge and Nonsense Purchase the book (http://maxcondition.com/page.php?103)
Chapter 8, Training for Muscular Growth Basics There are four key training elements to consider when training for muscular growth. These elements include load (weight on the bar), work (load multiplied by total repetitions), frequency (how often training is performed), and duration (time involved in seeing significant changes). Dan Moore has done an excellent job discussing these factors in a series of articles he wrote for hypertrophy-research.com. Below are some key points from Dan’s articles.
Load “Much of the debate over loading strategies really hasn’t been settled and the commonly held belief that hypertrophy is stimulated higher in low loading protocols than high loading protocols hasn’t really been proven.
In most cases, it goes something like this. High volumes and moderate intensities (e.g. 8–12 sets of 6–12RMs) with short rest intervals are thought to encourage hypertrophy whereas those with low volumes and high intensities are expected to achieve strength gains without hypertrophy (1-5).
As far back as the mid 1960s, O’Shea (6) compared a low-volume protocol (three sets of 2–3RM squats) with a high volume protocol (three sets of 9–10RM squats) over six weeks and found significant increases in thigh girth in both groups, but there was no significant difference between the groups…..”
Bahlai et al. (2010) conducted a study examining the environmental impact of several new synthetic and certified organic insecticides under consideration as reduced-risk insecticides for soybean aphid (Aphis glycines) control, using established and novel methodologies to directly quantify pesticide impact in terms of biocontrol services.
They found that in addition to reduced efficacy against aphids compared to novel synthetic insecticides, organic approved insecticides had a similar or even greater negative impact on several natural enemy species in lab studies, were more detrimental to biological control organisms in field experiments, and had higher Environmental Impact Quotients at field use rates.
Furthermore, the researchers report:
"We conducted a two year, five site study to examine the performance of these insecticides against aphids, and selectivity with respect to natural enemies under field conditions. In addition to efficacy, it is desirable for an insecticide to have a high selectivity for its target pests in order to minimize environmental impact, and to conserve biological control services provided by other organisms residing in the treated area. All synthetic insecticides had similar efficacy one week after treatment, though dimethoate efficacy was reduced in the second assessment week , and yield in plots treated with synthetic insecticides did not differ significantly. The two organic insecticides had lower efficacy than the synthetic insecticides at one week and two weeks post-treatment and did not offer significant yield protection over the untreated control . Field selectivity was highest amongst synthetic insecticides, and lowest amongst organic insecticides included in this experiment"
"Looking at the issue empirically, our results show that with regards to environmental impact, target selectivity and efficacy, the novel synthetic insecticides we tested have better performance than organic insecticides; suggesting that certain organic management practices are not more environmentally sustainable than conventional ones. It has been purported that organic systems are not just better for the environment, but are more economically sustainable because of the price premiums associated with organic food. Consumers are often willing to pay more for products they believe are produced in the most sustainable way possible, but we have shown that the organic methods available are not always the most sustainable choice."
Are organic methods more friendly to the environment? Depends of the precise methods, and it is an over simplification to assume all Organic methods or vice-versa are better for the environment. The idea that organic is better/safer is based on the false assumption that natural is better. From Organic Food The Real Story (Hale, 2009):
"Would you be surprised if I told you the world’s most dangerous toxins are all natural?
They include ricin, abrin, botulinum, and strychnine—highly evolved chemical weapons used by organisms for self-defense and territorial expansion. Indeed, every plant and microbe carries a variety of mostly uncharacterized, more or less toxic attack chemicals, and synthetic chemicals are no more likely to be toxic than natural ones (Silver, 2006)." What about nature's very own- water hemlock, considered one of North America's most toxic plants being highly poisonous to humans, or arsenic.
