I have come to the conclusion that there are several reasons for this, and once we can understand the reasons for the misinformation, we can begin to 'absorb what is useful and reject what is useless' (Bruce Lee). So for my first article for Raw Intensity I'd like to share a few with you -

1) Sports scientists have really only studied aerobic training in any depth. It is only in the last few years that strength training has been studied to any degree. Quite simply aerobic training is grossly over-rated. Over rated for health, over rated for performance and definitely over rated for fat loss. My personal opinion is that it is practically useless for fat loss, but the real problem is aerobic training's detrimental effect on strength and hypertrophy work. However for many years the only meaningful sport or exercise science research that was available was on aerobic training, and the only information on strength training came from Western Europe or in the US - from Joe Weider. Fortunately the tide is turning and strength and power training is being studied in greater depth, although I feel it will be several more years before the average athletes or gym goers training program will reap the benefits. That said - the research itself often provides as many problems as solutions........

2) The actual research itself often produces conflicting results. One main issue is that due to practical limitation most studies are completed in a few weeks or at best months. The reality is that training spans years of development and preparation - often longer than an Olympic cycle. Allied with the fact that the effects of a single set can't really be understood - the effect of one extra set on your next set, next workout, next weeks program etc can't be extrapolated, so short term studies only provide stimulus for further research at best. It's quite easy to see - that because any short term training stimulus will yield some results - we can quite often be confronted with research that shows two diametrically opposed programs both having similar short term effects - we won't really see the value of any program in a few weeks.

3) Research subjects - A good example of a typical subject in a university study is that of an untrained freshman - often so weak that they would make significant strength and muscle gains if they switched from 12oz beers to 20oz beers.

4) History versus Science. Lyn Jones the director of USA Weightlifting has often been quoted as saying that sports scientists are really more like sports historians. Sports scientists are often researching what coaches have been doing for years - current research is more on sports training history than current programs - researchers are often trying to validate (or invalidate) what most coaches are already doing.

5) Knowledge about training programs have been hampered by the growth of bodybuilding as an activity. Bodybuilding TRAINING has largely not progressed in the last thirty years. The program of the 1970 Champion Arnold Schwarzenneger is almost identical to the 1998-2003 champion Ronnie Coleman. The fact that bodybuilding in itself is extremity dominated in its training practice - and not core dominated as most sports conditioning programs should be - then the damage done by the intentions of the bodybuilding "strength coach" can begin to be seen. I'd go as far to say that the average bodybuilder would have nothing to offer the athlete in terms of conditioning advice.

6) The common use of anabolic steroids. I firmly believe that program design has been greatly influenced by the bodybuilding world and steroid users - Training on drugs makes it difficult to assess which is working - the anabolics or the program. Many anabolic steroid users gain on low intensity excessive volume programs that are most definitely not optimal but show changes due to their anabolic use - therefore they never optimize the training process and their methods contribute little to our knowledge of training. On a recent discussion on an internet message board, former NPC national bodybuilder Rob Schuh mentioned that most pros and top bodybuilders have no respect for today's strength coaches - his words - it seems that drugs and genetics are worth a lot more - speaks volumes more on the subject than I ever could. On the Supertraining egroup - Dr Dan Wagman - former Editor in Chief of Muscle and Fitness magazine mentioned that all the b odybuilders he had met over the years were quite open about their drug use - most admitting that it was the sole reason for their physique. Pharmacology has a greater influence than physiology. The take home message is - Ronnie's program will likely only work for Ronnie, with Ronnie's "supplementation" program also.

7) Bodybuilding magazines. It is now probably common knowledge that most of the training articles supposedly written by bodybuilders in the magazines are in fact ghost written and are usually hype driven - how the bodybuilder "attacks the muscle from all angles - making sure to get a total mind blowing pump". Most of these programs belong in fairy tale land.

8) There is no totally correct protocol. Mentzer would have you believe that only one set every ten days is enough. Multiple set coaches will tell you that one set is inadequate to fatigue all motor units. In reality - both approaches are valid, have both advantages and disadvantages and can and should be used

9)In fact there are several ways to train. People who have achieved world class standards in strength sports have all experimented with various combinations of the loading parameters to get to their level of sporting excellence. Both Bulgaria and the former Soviet Union have produced numerous world records in weightlifting and power lifting using very different training philosophies. Westside barbell has produced some excelletn lifters - but have also lost to lifters using quite different philosophies. Charles Staley - noted strength coach is fond of saying - a program is only as good as the time it takes you to adapt to it, and the best program for you is the one you are not on .....

10) VARIETY. Istvan Balyi states that the reality of training an athlete is a 'matter of best compromise' - that no matter how good your training program is - there always has to be an inherent imbalance in the program - either through volume load or sequencing. This is not a problem as long as the subsequent training programs address that imbalance. Charles Poliquin -" The body adapts to a training stimulus in as little as six workouts" - Ian King changes workouts every three weeks, Charles Staley every four weeks or so. Continuous adaptations must be made to the program in order to bring about continuous progress in the athlete.

Alwyn Cosgrove is the author of Secrets Of Martial Arts Conditioning, which you can find at his site AlwynCosgrove.com