BY MUR MENTZERBodybuilders Are Confused! E xplaining the relationship between man’s mind and art, Ayn Rand wrote, in an essay titled, The Psycho-Epistemology of Art, “While, in other areas of knowledge, men have outgrown the practice of seeking the guidance of mystic oracles, in the field of aesthetics this practice has remained in full force and is becoming more crudely obvious today.” To my knowledge, Miss Rand had no interest in bodybuilding, but if she had, she would have observed a similar phenomenon, ‘The bodybuilders I communicate with on a daily basis are agonizingly confused. ‘The sole source of information for many of them is muscle magazines, Which they read with almost religious zeal, regarding the words contained therein as if they wore the revealed truth of Sacred Scripture, of as oracular pronouncements, not to be questioned, but passively accepted, on blind faith, Most bodybuilders fail to recognize that muscle magazines are nat science journal but rather commercial catalogues whose primary reasea for existence is to sell nutrition supplements and exercise equipment. (One simply can't be too careful in this time of philosophical default, Even science journals have become suspect recently, as the proliferation of cases involving fraudulent rescarch data at the highest levels indicates.) While these actually-based, well-reasoned articles, these are rarities so at odds with the reams of contradictory misinformation that they are rendered valueless to those with d critical faculties and often overiooked by the more intelligent readers. The notion that bodybuilding is a science has been written and talked about for decades by muscle magazine writers and certain exercise physiologist. ‘To qualify as a legitimate, however, bodybuilding must have a consistent, rational theoretical base, applied seienec u12 HEAVY DUTY something that none of the aforementioned ~~ aside from Arthur Jones and myself -~ has ever provided. In fact, what passes today for the so-called “science of modern bodybuilding” is actually a pseudo-science. Propogated by the bodybuilding traditionalists, or orthodoxy, itis nothing more than a wanton assemblage of random, disconnected and contradictory ide: ‘A number of the orthodoxy’s self-styled “experts” have even alleged that there are no objective, universal principles of productive exercise. They claim that since each bodybuilder is unique, every individual bodybuilder requires a different training program. This implies that the issue of what is the best way to train to build muscle is a subjective one that can only be resolved by the random motions and blind urges of each bodybuilder. Despite their belief that no universal principles exist, many of these same people advocate that all bodybuilders should perform For best gains, they recommend two and even three sessions per day six days a week, with the seventh day off -- for sabbath, I suppose. Very scientific! ‘The principle implicit in such thinking is “more is better.” ‘This is an ethico-economic principle: more money, more success, ie., more values are better than less. (This principle 20 sets per bodypart, for up to two hours per session, does have a certain fisted application to endurance training.) Tal 14 4 principle from one context, such as economics, and applying it uncritically and blindly to another, sich as bodybuilding, is to commit the logical fallacy known as “context-switching.” Some years. ago, Mr. America Steve Michalik carried this erroneous notiva to its logical conclusion by advocating 75-100 sets per bodypart! Michalik practiced what he preached and ended up almost literally in the grave! So which is it: 12-20 sets or 75-100 sets? Actually, more fitting wonld be this line of questioning: 1) Why the contradiction? If each and every bodybuiller, being unique, requires a different training program, why advocate the same range uf sets for everyone? 2) Why the equivocation? Whose word should we take -~ and on what basis? Who is relating ‘he truth: the advocates of 12-20 sets or the advocates of 75-10) sets? Or are they both unintentionally relating a falsehood? 3) Why the lack of exactitude? Will bodybuilders obtain equal results from 12 sets and 1d sets and 20 sets, or from 75 sets and 87 sets and 100 sets? Stace scence ts an exact discipline, 1a proper science of bodybuilding should tell bodybuiiders precisely. what to do. 4) Why the evasion? Should all of the sets be performed with the same degece of intensity by the same individuals all of the time? While the issues involved in the questions raised abuse represent only the tip of the iceberg, they do serve as telling testimony to some of the disastivaty auteevtal eonsequences, that follow from lack of a sound, rational theoretical base A scientific theory is a set of principles that serves eather ay a curtect description of reality ora guideline for man’s actions. A farragoof unwarranted assumptions, false conclusions and irreconcilable contradictions does not constitute a sain theory and, thus, cannot serve asa guide to successful action. (The orthodoxy commits other intellectual errors as well A peime example is their