Hi guys.
I recently Purchased Pavel's book "Power to the People" and I found it to be a really great read. One question that I keep having, though, is, "Is what Pavel says about muscle really true?"
Mainly, in this book, Pavel says that ordinary weight lifting develops a lot of scar tissue and the increase in strength that you get is really because you are training your nervous system to activate more of your muscle (neurological efficiency). Basically his book covers several techniques that allow you to train your nervous system to activate more muscle without building muscle mass (i.e. scar tissue)
So, does regular weight lifting really develop mostly scar tissue?
Also, what are your guy's opinions on Pavel's books? I only have this one but am thinking about buying some of his others, do you guys agree with what he says or is he way off base?

Lastly, I've read about Charles Atlas' Dynamic Tension program and have been wondering how and if it really works. Is his program mostly for bulking up or is it also for building strength? How is it that you can "Add an inch to your chest in 10 days"??

Thanks guys!

To be honest I don't read any those books. I personally consider them garbage because it's only from the authors point of view.. He gives his opinion on things and expects his views to work on other people.

I have not read his books and I am not sure what his various viewpoints are. However, his reference to neurology being important in strength and muscle building is very important in my opinion. I share the same view in the sense that how nerve function occurs in relation to muscular demands (workouts) has been largely overlooked, and that paying more attention to changing the approach to muscle stimulation by way of targeting the nerve physiological capacities that some really impressive results have been gained. Anyways, who cares...I'm now boring even myself.

I don't think Pavel is going after bulk mass and so he probably is not a fan of neurology-based approaches to working out, other than for general fitness. If that's the goal, then maybe his approaches are best. And while I can't comment on the quality of his books, he's made some very good comments as well as some very bad ones along the way regarding many different things.

I think his greatest contribution (from what I've seen and read on the net) is his attention to exercise form. Since this is critical to just about every aspect of exercise, most people could benefit from reading his comments. So maybe in this case it would be bad to throw the baby out with the bath water.

The main problem with a lot of books, such as Pavel's, is that they are not necessarily too rigorous in terms of sciencs. Yes, the process of muscle "growth" is related to breakdown - healing - repair... as is scarring... but it's not exactly the same thing. Many times influential people in the fitness world pick up concepts in their travels which they pass on as a type of gospel. In many cases, if you actually get the chance to speak to them personally you'll get an "oh yeah... that idea was pretty lame."

Anyway, as mentioned, many of these books... while informative...are heavily influenced by the author's opinion.

In Pavel's case there are several things that he states fervently as fact that are simply wrong. Basically, that's just the way he is; he has a very forceful personality that comes through in his writing.

As for the Charles Atlas stuff, that was all put together in the 50's with the target market being skinny teenage boys who didn't want to get sand kicked in their face at the beach. It has historical interest, if you're into this stuff, but it's not much of a program.

Andrew