Has there been anything new in the S&C world in last 10 years?

Tirofijo2001

Yellow Belt
@Yellow
Joined
Sep 14, 2013
Messages
224
Reaction score
2
I'm sure the answer is yes, but I don't know what it would be. I'm out of the loop.

Early 2000s, you had Pavel teaching us not to go to failure and introducing kettlebells to the U.S. Then of course Crossfit exploded. Starting Strength itself became a huge deal. Wendler's 5/3/1 was published in 2011. Not sure when Stronglifts was introduced, but it's been a while.

Sure, tons of different powerlifting or strength programs have been released in the last 10 years, but I don't know if they moved the bar much (no pun intended.) RPE training instead of % training, maybe?

On the endurance side, people started training using wattage on bikes and Maffetone has been getting more respect, but both of those started more than 10 years ago.

What's been big, revolutionary, or just novel in the last 10 years?
 
I'm interested in this as well. I went hard on stronglifts and wendlers 531 about 10 years ago. Happy to say I'm still lifting both strength and hypertrophy along with running. Have NOT read an article or YouTube video since. Progressive overload was my answer to working out and that's it.
 
Not "new" but Crossift definitely brought on a renewed interest in Olympic Lifting and many people in those gyms moved over to exclusively Olympic lift as their primary form of training.
 
Triphasic Training.

Yep. Cal Dietz is a fucking smart dude.

I'd say there's not much in terms of actual "knowledge" that's come about in the past few decades, really. The main change that seems to be coming is that there's a lot better understanding in general of the fundamentals of strength and conditioning - how strength is best developed, how different energy systems support each other, etc, which leads to better overall availability of solid strength and conditioning programmes. Of course, superstition and false beliefs still persist, but I feel that in general the state of S&C is improving from a base level.
 
I have lifted for 35+ years now. I use to be into the "science". There was a time in my life I would have said anything other than Verkhoshansky is nonsense.

Our society though suffers from a type of statistical fraud that most people don't have the mathematical background in probability and statistics to appreciate. We use statistical tools developed for particles in space and apply it to humans in time. This leads to all sorts of pseudo science nonsensical results.

At this point in my life and experience I can see now how "exercise science" is really just a type of this statistical fraud. At the individual level everything is dominated by your genetics and age. At the ensemble level it doesn't matter because of the above.
 
Young S&C coach here. For me the biggest thing i've seen cropping up over the last few years in terms of popularity (although be it not new by any standards) is the use of complex/ contrast sets or other pre-conditioning modalities for post-activation potentiation/ performance enhancement (PAP/PAPE). In laymans term using a heavy strength movement to increase motor unit recruitment followed shortly by a mechanically similar plyometric/ ballistic movement (jumps/ throws) to make use of that increased motor unit recruitment to express power.

Not revolutionary by any means but it has it's place. I've started working with fighters recently and use it at certain times. I plan on studying its effects on improving striking performance this year for my masters thesis!
 
I have lifted for 35+ years now. I use to be into the "science". There was a time in my life I would have said anything other than Verkhoshansky is nonsense.

Our society though suffers from a type of statistical fraud that most people don't have the mathematical background in probability and statistics to appreciate. We use statistical tools developed for particles in space and apply it to humans in time. This leads to all sorts of pseudo science nonsensical results.

At this point in my life and experience I can see now how "exercise science" is really just a type of this statistical fraud. At the individual level everything is dominated by your genetics and age. At the ensemble level it doesn't matter because of the above.

I'm not sure what your point is at the end there. Are you saying that superior genetic individuals will be superior than lessers regardless of their training methods?

Or are you saying exercise science doesn't exist because not every person is equivalent? Because the latter is retarded and fallacious. If that were true then how could science be conducted on anything involving nutrition, or medicine, etc. There isn't going to be a universal control in the sample. Just because some people might respond better and get faster stronger and some see far less progress...

Doesn't mean that the method or exercise doesn't "work". But again not sure what you meant exactly.
 
Maybe heart rate variability for recovery? Idk how old that is though
 
In terms of equipment, maybe the transformer bar is a recent invention. The bench Slingshot was invented around 2010. The barbell hip thrust and hip thrust machines were invented recently and are popular I think. I've seen some people start experimenting with flywheel devices too. Flywheels are old, but I'm not sure they've been used extensively to train lifters or athletes before, although they remain in the fringe. Also, bar speed measuring devices are being experimented with by some people.

I think the RTS/Mike Tuscherer training principles with RPE, fatigue percentages, etc, started to become popular maybe 10 years ago, or a little more. RPE as a concept is older, but as a principle that is added into lifting programs to auto-regulate loads/volume, I believe it's more recent, and it's become very popular.

Other than that, probably a lot of nutrition/hypertrophy/general lifting myths have been busted in the past decade or so, although new ones have been born too.
 
Last edited:
I think rpe is gaining in popularity these days rather than traditional progressive overload. Dan Johns new thing is going for a walk immediately after lifting to burn the fatty acids freed up from the high intensity work. He lost a bunch of weight and looks great since he started doing it
 
The only new thing is younger dudes obsession with taking SARMS and PEDs so they can be "social media stars".

Otherwise, the whole idea of not training to failure is retarded. Sure, if you are on PEDs or a newb you don't have to train to failure. If you are natty and intermediate or advanced... you better expect to train to failure if you want to get bigger. At least on some sets.
 
Techniques and protocols have always been there, but I would just say general knowledge of the average gym goer is much higher then it was 10 or 20 years ago. Strength training was more niche and I really only saw athletes doing it for their sport.

Nowadays your average gym bro or fit chick does squats and deadlifts.
 
The short answer is not really. In S&C most stuff is just old fundamentals repackaged. The underlying understanding of "why" behind the "how" might have improved, but the "how" remains the same stuff done differently, if that makes sense. I'd say at the higher end it's done more precisely than before, but no more.

Kind of like most other activities. Eg. There's nothing revolutionary about today's football compared to 40 years ago, the game improved a lot, but just incrementally building on itself, rather than anything cutting edge turning the game inside out.
 
I have lifted for 35+ years now. I use to be into the "science". There was a time in my life I would have said anything other than Verkhoshansky is nonsense.

Our society though suffers from a type of statistical fraud that most people don't have the mathematical background in probability and statistics to appreciate. We use statistical tools developed for particles in space and apply it to humans in time. This leads to all sorts of pseudo science nonsensical results.

At this point in my life and experience I can see now how "exercise science" is really just a type of this statistical fraud. At the individual level everything is dominated by your genetics and age. At the ensemble level it doesn't matter because of the above.

How-to-Lie-with-Statistics.jpg
 
Not "new" but Crossift definitely brought on a renewed interest in Olympic Lifting and many people in those gyms moved over to exclusively Olympic lift as their primary form of training.

Definitely helped send a lot of Orthopaedic doctors and physiotherapist's kids to college.....or alimony.
 
I have lifted for 35+ years now. I use to be into the "science". There was a time in my life I would have said anything other than Verkhoshansky is nonsense.

Our society though suffers from a type of statistical fraud that most people don't have the mathematical background in probability and statistics to appreciate. We use statistical tools developed for particles in space and apply it to humans in time. This leads to all sorts of pseudo science nonsensical results.

At this point in my life and experience I can see now how "exercise science" is really just a type of this statistical fraud. At the individual level everything is dominated by your genetics and age. At the ensemble level it doesn't matter because of the above.

That’s a lot of words for basically shit.
 
Definitely helped send a lot of Orthopaedic doctors and physiotherapist's kids to college.....or alimony.
also lots of people off meds, lost considerable weight and ended up 10x healthier than when they walked in the door
 
Back
Top