Less is more?

[wmaousley]

Ok so I am seeing many threads and posts as of late about how "Less is More". Well I have news for you, how the fvck can less be more? Logic people, fvcking logically makes no sense, nor does it make practical sense to use an analogy like this.

Explain how $1 can be more than $100 if you agree with this fvcked up analogy.

Just a video that expresses my views of the "Less is More" analogy.

https://youtu.be/pDAfEutrmzg

[lovbyts]

$1 in the US buys me a candy bar, maybe. $1 in Thailand buys me.
OK yeah its not quite what you meant but works for me. lol

[tarmyg]

Less is more is a concept of minimalism. While, in the strict sense, less can not be more than, well more, it is about utilizing the tools you have in a more effective manner. I am answering this as I am running a thread call "Less is More Log" where I decided that a minimal amount of drugs in combination with a more thought out diet would generate better results which are my version of minimalism. You can use "Less is more" to describe using necessary components to create an impression of extreme simplicity which in my case refers to the amount of drugs taken.

Of course, in your version, taken in the literal sense, it is an impossibility like most things when done in the literal sense.

[wmaousley]

Less is more is a concept of minimalism. While, in the strict sense, less can not be more than, well more, it is about utilizing the tools you have in a more effective manner. I am answering this as I am running a thread call "Less is More Log" where I decided that a minimal amount of drugs in combination with a more thought out diet would generate better results which are my version of minimalism. You can use "Less is more" to describe using necessary components to create an impression of extreme simplicity which in my case refers to the amount of drugs taken.

Of course, in your version, taken in the literal sense, it is an impossibility like most things when done in the literal sense.

OK I get the conceptualization of your thought process that the idea of less drugs and a more thought out diet could result in better results. As far as I know this is an untested theory and how have you come to a determination that this is effective? What research have you conducted? How many subjects did you research? What research methods have you used to determine your theory is correct? What measurements were used to make this determination?

I am curious to know or read any end every research study that tries to determine that "Less is More" however these aren't published or available. I and many other researchers can pick apart this theory no matter how you test it to prove it false in any case no matter the research method utilized to determine the results.

I am not trying to call anyone out, just want to make everyone aware that the "Less is More" propaganda is bullshlt.

[wmaousley]

$1 in the US buys me a candy bar, maybe. $1 in Thailand buys me.
OK yeah its not quite what you meant but works for me. lol

Lol it had to be you.

[tarmyg]

OK I get the conceptualization of your thought process that the idea of less drugs and a more thought out diet could result in better results. As far as I know this is an untested theory and how have you come to a determination that this is effective? What research have you conducted? How many subjects did you research? What research methods have you used to determine your theory is correct? What measurements were used to make this determination?

I am curious to know or read any end every research study that tries to determine that "Less is More" however these aren't published or available. I and many other researchers can pick apart this theory no matter how you test it to prove it false in any case no matter the research method utilized to determine the results.

I am not trying to call anyone out, just want to make everyone aware that the "Less is More" propaganda is bullshlt.

Let me clarify. Better results are, obviously, in this case, something subjective as for me this includes everything from the actual muscular development to side effects (Long and short term). Perhaps "Less is more" is BS but for me, it simply represents a way of not going crazy with the amount of gear I take as in this case, more would bring in things I am not looking for in terms of the wanted and unwanted effects. Not sure why it has to be read in a completely literal sense?

[novastepp]

Its the semantics that I think are causing your questions. Maybe think of it as "less is better". You can find this truth in many places, including workouts, working sets, training time...etc, just to use bodybuilding as the example. Obviously it isn't a universal truth of all things, but it has truth in many places.

[BG]

Goes for training also. Less is more. Words to train by, intensity rules. Bad thread.

[GirlyGymRat]

i relate concept to ppl buying "stuff" and more "stuff" rather then acquiring only the things they love. you know the ppl who have so much stuff they rent a storage held to store this meaningless crap.....so the philosophy is less "stuff" is more because if you only have those thing you love love love, you will have more cash, peace

[wmaousley]

Goes for training also. Less is more. Words to train by, intensity rules. Bad thread.

Even worse statement. Explain how "Less is More" with anything and I will without a doubt pick apart your theory and show you that you are wrong.

[wmaousley]

Less Guns More Crime?
Less Drugs More Addicts?

Lets have a reality check people. Less is in no way more no matter how you interpret it. Life is literal, so lets all be literal. How about instead of saying "Less is more" you say "Cause and affect", "actions and results" but most definitely not "Less is More".


I challenge all of you to show me one verified way that "Less is more" in a literal sense. I bet you cant.

[bloodchoke]

I challenge all of you to show me one verified way that "Less is more" in a literal sense. I bet you cant.

Of course you cannot in a literal sense -- they're opposites. That's what makes the phrase poetic when it's used properly.
Less is more - meaning and origin.

[BG]

Less Guns More Crime?
Less Drugs More Addicts?

Lets have a reality check people. Less is in no way more no matter how you interpret it. Life is literal, so lets all be literal. How about instead of saying "Less is more" you say "Cause and affect", "actions and results" but most definitely not "Less is More".


I challenge all of you to show me one verified way that "Less is more" in a literal sense. I bet you cant.

You were talking about the forum. Just walk away from this one.

[novastepp]

You were talking about the forum. Just walk away from this one.

I couldn't agree more.

[kelkel]

Even worse statement. Explain how "Less is More" with anything and I will without a doubt pick apart your theory and show you that you are wrong.

His theory relates to HIT training. If you want to argue it talk to Dorian Yates. But yes, it's subjective.

Re the "literal sense" then DY trained far less than anyone else yet was far better.

[Viking13]

In medicine, the first thing researchers must do is establish the identity of the chemical compound, or drug, that will induce the desired physical effect. Once that is accomplished, they must then discover how much (the dose) and how often (dosing frequency), i.e., the "narrow therapeutic window," to give the individual. Just the right amount will produce a positive effect; anymore, a negative effect.

That very principle from medical theory carries over and has direct application to exercise theory. In bodybuilding, the first thing was to establish the identity, or nature, of the training stress that would induce growth stimulation; namely, high-intensity, anaerobic activity. That done, the next step was to discover the volume, or dose, and the frequency; again, the narrow therapeutic window. Just the right amount in terms of volume and frequency produces a positive effect; anymore, a negative effect.

As M. Doug McGuff, MD, and President of Ultimate Exercise, Inc., states, "You wouldn't take any medicine if it didn't come with a correct dose and dosing frequency; why should you expect anything less from your exercise Rx?"

[wmaousley]

In medicine, the first thing researchers must do is establish the identity of the chemical compound, or drug, that will induce the desired physical effect. Once that is accomplished, they must then discover how much (the dose) and how often (dosing frequency), i.e., the "narrow therapeutic window," to give the individual. Just the right amount will produce a positive effect; anymore, a negative effect.

That very principle from medical theory carries over and has direct application to exercise theory. In bodybuilding, the first thing was to establish the identity, or nature, of the training stress that would induce growth stimulation; namely, high-intensity, anaerobic activity. That done, the next step was to discover the volume, or dose, and the frequency; again, the narrow therapeutic window. Just the right amount in terms of volume and frequency produces a positive effect; anymore, a negative effect.

As M. Doug McGuff, MD, and President of Ultimate Exercise, Inc., states, "You wouldn't take any medicine if it didn't come with a correct dose and dosing frequency; why should you expect anything less from your exercise Rx?"

Cause and effect. Thank you for making my point even more valid. Its more about optimization, which makes literal sense.

[wmaousley]

His theory relates to HIT training. If you want to argue it talk to Dorian Yates. But yes, it's subjective.

Re the "literal sense" then DY trained far less than anyone else yet was far better.

Again this is more to do with optimization of results than the "Less is more" theory.

[wmaousley]

You were talking about the forum. Just walk away from this one.

It cannot be argued my friend. And yes I am talking about the forum and everything else in life for that matter.

[kelkel]

Again this is more to do with optimization of results than the "Less is more" theory.

Isn't that the point.

[novastepp]

Isn't that the point.

It is exactly the point, Kel. That is why I tried to point out "that less is better", is a more semantically friendly way of saying it. He doesn't understand that short hand is an easier way of relating information.

[novastepp]

Less Guns More Crime?
Less Drugs More Addicts?

This is why your logic statement is flawed and almost all logical statements are flawed, because the inverse is not true.

More guns less crime?
More drugs less addicts?

Equally wrong, but that does not "scientifically" or "logically" imply that more guns = more crime, or that more drugs = more addicts.

Logic isn't true and false, it is a method of thinking. You can think more time in the gym = more gains, but it doesnt. Logical thinking does not apply to every situation, and that is why learning and subsequent improvement is almost always illogical.

[Bonaparte]

"Less is more" generally applies to HRT because higher doses will cause an increase in estrogen, which will then cause the ED we were attempting to treat.

And it would apply to cycles if someone inexperienced uses so much gear that the side effects are overwhelming and keep them from training, sleeping, or eating properly, when they would have had a more productive cycle with lower doses.

[kelkel]

"Less is more" generally applies to HRT

Yep. I spew that out all the time over there....

[Viking13]

Yep. I spew that out all the time over there....

Worked for me, thanks to you.

[wmaousley]

This is why your logic statement is flawed and almost all logical statements are flawed, because the inverse is not true.

More guns less crime?
More drugs less addicts?

Equally wrong, but that does not "scientifically" or "logically" imply that more guns = more crime, or that more drugs = more addicts.

Logic isn't true and false, it is a method of thinking. You can think more time in the gym = more gains, but it doesnt. Logical thinking does not apply to every situation, and that is why learning and subsequent improvement is almost always illogical.

A Logical Statement is a meaningful declarative statement that is either true or false. You can try to be the smart guy here but maybe you need to research what you say before you make another false statement. I see you're a knowledgeable Member. Stick to what you know.

[wmaousley]

"Less is more" generally applies to HRT because higher doses will cause an increase in estrogen, which will then cause the ED we were attempting to treat.

And it would apply to cycles if someone inexperienced uses so much gear that the side effects are overwhelming and keep them from training, sleeping, or eating properly, when they would have had a more productive cycle with lower doses.

This is Causation and definitely not less is more.

[novastepp]

A Logical Statement is a meaningful declarative statement that is either true or false. You can try to be the smart guy here but maybe you need to research what you say before you make another false statement. I see you're a knowledgeable Member. Stick to what you know.

I see you can Google.

Logic is simply a method of problem solving. You take a tiny part of that and call it a declarative statement, but that isn't logic. It destroys logic.

This is diverting away from the thread though, in which you claim to be able to dismiss all the examples people have provided in which less is more. Since that isn't going to happen, I'm done here.

[Baxter35]

OP..do you get this worked up over all expressions in the English language? If so life must be a nightmare because almost all such expressions fall apart when you try to analyze them literally. Less is more is actually one of the more logical expressions though because it at least conveys an easily understood train of thought toward approaching any given situation with the intent of maximizing results with the least effective action necessary to achieve desired results. Well, easily understood by most of us, apparently it just drives you batsh!t crazy.

[NACH3]

Goes for training also. Less is more. Words to train by, intensity rules. Bad thread.

Marcus has a way with words, I'm sure he'll pop in and explain the whole DY theory as Kel stated as well! He trained far less(45min to 1hr Max) - 2hrs less then some/most BBers.... yet moved the sport from big to Freak status in one yr... '93-94' while his career was all based off of the HIT principles of Extreme heavy lifting(using progressive overload) and high intensity will propel you to a better status(coincidence that pretty much everyone in that thread is a monster(I'm not saying I'm huge by any means) all growth is is the way you stress your body of how much stress you can put it under... Then with progressive overload your body hasn't got a choice but to grow...

Furthermore, once genetic limits are reached one can't just keep getting stronger(or we'd all be repping 500lbd on the bench etc) so what else can we do... Stress the body in different ways... Intensity is king... Working to true positive failure and beyond - once weights stop going up we can only raise our intensity and shorten rest times etc

It's a very applicable phrase in BBing and one many seem to follow!

No one is arguing in the literal sense that your wrong... But you've not seen the light even with decades of experience talking... Just sayin

[BG]

Guys dont even try to reason with him, he's to thick headed. Let it die.

[Viking13]

Guys dont even try to reason with him, he's to thick headed. Let it die.

So what you're saying is, is that less of this thread is more better?

Agreed. Lmaoooooooooi

[BG]

Well done Viking on that note. .......