Hey, Milo! Would you be open to doing a yearly upload of a hypertrophy checklist that changes based off the ever changing literature? It can be challenging to keep up with the new findings and having a series that sort of gives you the barebones or most important things to keep in mind for programing could be helpful.
Do we think the principles change? Progressive overload, reasonable volume, quality exercise selection, proper nutrition, enough sleep, and pound away at consistency. People have been building quality physiques for decades on that. Science doesn’t help much for 99% of lifters.
Actually they don't change that much. And Your approach should not simply change because of one single research. Multiple papers are needed to make a change. And those take time, years
They're all in the same camp and Jeff is at least maintains a good relationship with both of them. No way Jeff is touching the AI apps especially since he owns an AI diet app (macro factor)
I was thinking the same thing. I get this is UA-cam but he doesn't need to do it and it actively takes away from his argument. He has to be above this youtuber bullshit if he wants to present himself as an authority
maybe, maybe not. But the amount of exercise science research in the last 5-10 years is more than in the 70 years before it. the field has modernized a lot. so we know a lot more than we did 10 years ago.
@@NeuronIronyeah totally, which is why so many of the good coaches are always posting about how they've changed their minds about various methodologies, since new evidence has been released. These are exciting times.
Ryan hasn't done surface EMG in quite a while, he has agreed with you that this has been debunked. This is the second time you've used him as the SEMG example, well after he stopped using it. Jeremy used it too but has been spared.
And again, Ryan finally used SEMG to prevent other muscles to be excited too much when they shouldn't be the limited factor. I found that was a very good approach: not choosing an exercice that excites a lot a targeted muscle, but more one where others are less excited. I still don't think it's a bad idea.
For 40 years I've been lifting as the bronze era bodybuilders did, 3 times a week, full body, I'm no steve Reeves ,lol, but it worked for them and it works for me
As a teen I started lifting that way during the 90's (full body every other day) back when everyone was doing a bro split. I was laughed at a few times yet made better gains and faster than near everyone else and surpassed most other lifters in those early years. (I later as an intermediate made better gains on a bro split) But the full body training gave me a solid base to work from and can still be a solid split at any level
@papaspaulding , lve been using the same York and weider charts that came with my 1st set of weights, all these decades. If it ain't broke don't try and fix it,lol.
@@RoyyMak Haha same. That's how I stumbled onto doing full body, basically I knew nothing and just did 3 sets to failure (then 4) of every exercise on the chart in one workout every other day via one of those exercise charts which came with my first set of weider dumbbells lol
@papaspaulding , when l do some of the old school exercises in the gym l get stared at like I don't know what I'm doing, yeah tell that to Leroy colbert, first guy to get 21 inch arms steroid free,lol
@@RoyyMak I remember one excercise on there I used to do which built me a really big chest back then and also a wide neck, basically you did a wrestlers arch I think they call it on the floor then perform a dumbbell flye. so it turns into a kind of decline flye movement with a really deep stretch. certainly attracts some "WTF" looks if doing it in the gym on a floor mat lol
A very informative video no doubt.. here's some food for thought.. 1. Clickbait: Using 4 of the most popular fitness influencers in your thumbnail just to gain more viewership? 2. Double Standard: You pointed out Ryan Humiston for using EMG devices; why not point out Jeremy Ethier as well?
Jeremy always says that EMG "might" predict muscle growth but there isn't conclusive evidence. He never states that anything is absolutely conclusive when it isn't. He also updates his advice regularly based on new findings.
THANK YOU FOR NUMBER 4!! For the longest time I have always had the thought lingering in the back of my head like "wait a minute, what if i just equate the volume working back to back sessions, effectively making it an extended rest period?" and always thought this was perhaps stupid because I've never seen anyone in the science based social media side address this, and now I have my answer. You've gained a new sub. Thank you.
Even with all the hate Jeff Cavaliere gets these days, back in 2019 he was the biggest science based lifting channel and was the first that made working out start to make sense for myself and many others. Always gonna have some degree of respect for him because of that, even if a lot of his information isn't entirely accurate.
Yes, but the problem is that he (and others) needs to produce content to keep views. And he established himself as a "science-based fitness coach", so he can't make gaming videos, or travel, or unboxing gadgets😂
i like PPL with 2 days off per week so that the ppl rotates around those days. This allows more time between leg work..... i can never recover legs on time.
I agree on the programming. Bro split is outdated. There is no reason to smash hard on one day for some muscle group and rest an entire week. Upper body for example, can recover a lot faster than lower body and can take more frequency than lower body. Imo I like the 3 days full body split because it gives the most bang for buck for casual gym goers that are looking for gym life balance.
I just moved from an ULPPL program to your 5-day full-body program. I am absolutely loving it so far. You just addressed the one question I had on it regarding training the same muscle two days in a row. I was surprised that I recovered fine for the next workout.
@@eitanslivko8600 it's a win for lengthened partials. equal muscle growth - not less. lengthened partials are way easier and less effort to do than full ROM anyway. So definitely not "debunked".
@@overlord3481 my man, the lengthened partials were literarily worse according to the study. not to mention that the study was extremely biased and built in a way that would make the lengthened partials more effective ( you can check figure 2 for that matter). and they said before the study was finished that they're twice as beneficial than full rom so the study did disprove their claims. not to mention they only checked muscles that benefit from longer lengths due to their sarcomeres operating on or close to the descending limb. also they're not easier because they induce more stretch mediated fatigue something not mentioned in the study.
You should consider releasing a white paper about what the algorithm is. Open sourcing that with an appropriate license would benefit you in getting crowdourced feedback and critique and help imporve things long term. It also provides transparency to the consumer.
97% of the population perhaps, but definitely not 97% of gym goers. Most people I know got the effort part down but they have no clue how to actually optimally train and recover
It's the difference between 'effective' vs 'optimal'...bro splits are absolutely effective, they're just slightly suboptimal. This is for speed of progress. The endpoint is the same either way.
Because people with elevated levels of testosterone have longer hypertrophy responses to stimulus, so they can train very hard on the day and grow muscle well after the initial stimulus.
@@SeuOupros are always looking to improve. They desicate their lives to this sport & turn every Stone to become the best they Can. Yet they all do bodypart splits. Think that is just coincidence? Or are these «stupid bros» that dont understand Milos videos
In gymnastics, you do pull-ups, dips, push-ups, rope-climbs, for "warm ups," every day, before your regular 3 hour work-out. It's all anaerobic, five days a week, all the same body parts, and nobody had problems with recovery. Nobody watched their diet, either. In a couple of years, you're pretty jacked.
This is almost all relatively small people who almost universally began training as teens or even children. Of course they have no trouble with recovery and are lean - anyone who couldn't maintain that rate of work and had a body heavy enough to make those calisthenics require a lot of recovery washed out immediately from gymnastics.
@@fatterperdurabo42069 Got any scientific studies to support your assumption that recovery ability changes significantly with age? I've watch several hundred YT vids on "Over 50" resisitance training, and only found one vid recently, highlighting studies that recovery changes very little with age.
I don’t get the hate the community takes towards one another. It’s off putting. Especially, when the people criticizing admit issues and have much better advice than the community did when they started or the criticism is just a misrepresentation.
When I swapped to an emphasis on TUT, my gains improved markedly. I made sure every set went for at least 50 seconds and saw much better results than before, without any change in terms of approaching failure. Part of this may be attributable to spending more time in the stretched position, but regardless, TUT has been a godsend.
The age of men at my gym ranges between 18 & 75 (approximately), and I think this is fairly typical in public gyms these days. As 99% of the research studies Milo uses were carried out using males in their 20s then many of Milo's recommendations may not apply to a large number of men who train in public gyms - certainly not to men over 55. For these men some, maybe many, of Milo's recommendations are no less bogus than the UA-camrs Milo repeatedly criticises. Maybe UA-cam strength/hypertrophy gurus should realise the range of ages in their audience & be a little more careful about the applicability of their recommendations.
You might be able to recovery from the fatigue of training a given muscle the next day but won’t you still be recovering from the damage from the previous session. Also, MYOPs would still be elevated from the session the day before. It doesn’t make sense to train the muscle so soon after.
When I'm trying to get time under tension, I don't worry about the rep speed. I just avoid relaxed positions/angles between reps. For example I don't lower the weight fully in curls, or I don't lift it up to 90 degrees vertical in preacher curls.
Time under tension is not specific to the idea of muscle growth, it is about finding a technique and tempo to perform an exercise. This allows for the development of good technique and long term gains while mitigating injury risk. I don't anyone that bought into EMG as a serious step in training. Bro splits are a viable way to train. So is full body training and other training schemes. It all depends on where you are at in your training and whether or not it is time to train. I started out doing full body training 3 days a week and when I plateaued after 2 years, I went to a Mentzer/Yates bro split, one set to failure technique for 6 months and then a push/pull/legs protocol. The answer to what works best for programming is usually, it depends. Depends on your level of experience, goals, time availability and so on.
Well, according to to my nonscience based experience and at age 69, do whatever you find comfortable , always seeking progress . Bottom line, keep it challenging and simple. In no time, you’ll see good results- for your age group.
Milo, would you agree on the fact that long length partials mainly affect the distal region? That'd turn it into a big no for bodybuilding purposes, especially for arms and shoulders training. Noone wants a distal region too developed that it kills your biceps peak. Can also make your delts and triceps feel less "pumped". I think it's great for health benefits and injury prevention (stronger muscles near the tendon and stronger tendons as well), but not ideal when adopting it as your main method for muscle growth. House of Hypertrophy just uploaded a video about that. I've been saying that for a while, but it seems that we're getting more evidence on it now. It's pretty obvious imho, you can even feel it when training and soreness will also be more prominent in that area, which reinforces the idea.
I have literally never heard of anyone with an "overdeveloped distal" end of bicep. Stop stressing over imaginary problems. I also don't understand how it would kill your peak considering how you can't change your tendon length.
@@overlord3481 There are studies addressing the growth of different portions of the muscle which show this isn't some made up bs... It's pretty logical if you ask me, as the most stressed portion will be the one that can be led to better growth. It would kill your peak because you want your biceps to be more prominent right in the middle. If the sides are too developed, the middle looks way less impressive. Especially if you have long biceps insertions, this is a big no for bodybuilding aesthetics. House of Hypertrophy just uploaded a video about this, but you could even draw your own conclusions with the "Optimize Muscle Growth" video he uploaded a month ago. There you can see how the distal region is getting stimulated disproportionately in comparison to the other 2 with long lengthened partials. And yes, you and I have both seen people with a distal region that's too big multiple times. There are multiple influencers with arms as big as my head with no peak at all which are either doing LLP or exercises that emphasize the stretch like lying dumbbell curls or bayesian curls. Could tell many names but I don't wanna trigger anybody. Follow the LLP trace and you'll get to their door. If you're up to date you know which guys I'm talking about. No hate towards them, but I think they hopped on the LLP wagon too soon without considering this logic.
This is why exercise science ruined bodybuilding culture. I could confidently bet a grand that you don't have an overall good set of arms to be nerding out over this minutiae
@@danielmccarten4357 And you'd lose a grand for acting like a fool over someone you don't know. Plus, will a picture somehow make any argument better or worse? I can show you my arms, they are pretty good (1,75m and 96kg bodybuilder). Apart from that, I'm the one trying to debunk the "exercise science" latest trend with logic and factual information while being open about disagreement and debate. That's why I've written this straight to Milo like I've done to Mike or Nippard. I don't understand where your comment logic comes from, there's a whole legion of guys defending LLP that suspiciously don't have a great set of arms. Idk man, join the dots... I'm defending old school methods in this case. Being critical with something doesn't turn you into a whiny nerd.
I just workout till I want to cry and then move on to a new muscle group. And as long as I wake up motivated to cry again I just keep doing it. Only when I wake up and have a panic attack from the idea of crying in my workout do I then adjust my #’s… It’s pretty simple. Do stuff till you want to cry. The man who cries more grows more muscle.
Been doing body part splits for 18 years. Natural PRs Bench:365 Squat: 405 Deadlift: 425 In no way saying he is wrong, dude is a lot more qualified than myself, but you can definitely build real proper muscle and strength by doing 1 muscle group a week. I think the issue is most people have no idea how to push themselves to the point where it can work as well as it does for myself.
the reason that the body part split doesnt work for people is because you have to go train at least five days a week consistently as well as recover in time
So crazy. That weightlifters have been training two lifts (with a couple of accessories) for 4-6 times a week, sometimes twice a day, for decades and it didn't seem to stop them from progressing greatly. But then again Soviets in the 80's followed their lifters pretty much nationwide to accrue data. Now that's not hypertrophy training specifically, but you might think it's fair to assume it's not deleterious to hypertrophy either if they were successfully progressing.
Incredibile quality of the video and information. People like you are really a blessing for us bodybuilding enthusiastic. Thank you so much from Italy, hope you grow your channel bro!
TUTs between 15s and 75s produce no significant difference in hypertrophy. Rep speed hasn't been shown to matter if you do 5-30 reps lasting 15-75s. Also reps DO matter. 1 rep lasting 15 seconds does not work as well as 5 reps lasting 15 seconds.
How dare you suggest the bros never had swag! Bright coloured stripy/patterned clown-esque parachute pants! crop tops! Dr Martins in the gym denim cut off short shorts sleeve-less lumberjack shirts... Man the 90's were wild
Im struggling to reconcile how it's okay to lift if you're still sore, but how much people preach progressive overload. I can't lift as much if I don't recover, let alone lift more
@@logomarkzI mean, that’s what he studied for his phd. It’s part of his expertise. And he’s the first to report that they found no difference between lengthened partials and full ROM in the most recent study.
ryan simply uses the semg to determine which muscles take over or are most excited when doing certain variations. it has worked for me immensely as a bodybuilder. to ignore his and my gains is simply unscientific because other people were using emg wrong. thats like saying that the ruler isnt useful because its not a good baseball bat. his program is only 20 too and i now have a library of the absolute best techniques
I'd like to see a video explaining why we shouldn't believe any of the former studies, and why these current studies trump all previous findings. What was it about these studies that brings so much certainty? It would be a great discussion. Otherwise any coach can just say their competitors are all outdated, and use confirmation bias to find studies that contradict what all their competitors are preaching. it's a bit of a "pick me" positioning move.
0:54 I actually do "one rep" to build muscle-a 20-second sustained hold at 70%+ of my one-rep max is the functional equivalent of a set of 10 isotonic lifts because they have the same time under tension. But I get similar/the same gains without beating up my joints and connective tissues. I've switched to almost exclusively overcoming and yielding isometrics for this reason and it's working great.
@@jl3114 Lat pulldowns, shoulder press, abdominal machines, back extensions, overhead tricep extensions, just about everything. Don't get me wrong, going through a full range of motion can be useful too, like with a squat rack, but with all this new research showing that lengthened partials work just as well for hypertrophy as full ROM in theory there's no reason why isometric lengthened partials at sufficient loads shouldn't have similar effects for hypertrophy as isotonic lengthened partials. Eliminating the movement aspect saves joint damage and lessens fatigue and to some extent takes the guesswork or variability of tension levels out of the equation which I think helps most with things like bicep curls where at the top and bottom of the movement there's basically zero or very little tension the way it's traditionally performed in gyms. I feel a lot less tired and beat up the next day doing things this way which allows me to do more frequent training during the week.
@@freehatespeech6804It is but it's unclear how many pounds that would be for a given muscle. There's not a clear or clean way to measure transferability between bodyweight and gym lifts, so a person who can do 10 pullups can probably also hold something like their bodyweight number for 20 seconds on a lat pulldown in the maximum contracted position. Certainly that's been my experience; I used heavy isometric holds to replace conventional lifts and in about 7 months I went from ~80 lbs on my lat pulldowns to ~190 lbs doing 20 second holds 3 times to replace 3 sets of conventional reps since that's the rough equivalent time under tension between the two. For the sake of comparison it's better (and fairer) to compare bodyweight to bodyweight and regular weightlifting to regular weightlifting in terms of numbers.
@@schoolbonddogs Awesome stuff man. Yeah I think beginners should always start with full ROM though to learn the movement and build foundational strength, I wasn't going to switch to lengthened partials in most exercises until full ROM starts to go stale on me, but maybe I'll give these isometric holds at length a try. When you think about it, it makes sense because gymnasts who use rings and hold their weight with their arms stretched out - their fucking triceps are huge. And alot of those guys don't bench
I have been working out since 1984 missed maybe one week when I had pneumonia. I have tried every workout every combination and the time under tension is the only thing I saw significant gains in instead of doing 20 push-ups times 10 if I do 10 push-ups times 10 but each push-up is one second up hold a second one second down hold a second and do the same thing with Neutral grip chin-ups I saw much gains. So from now on no matter what the study say I’m doing lower numbers, extremely strict slow repetitions as I saw by far the best gains.
Somewhat contradictory. Each muscle should be worked twice/week, since muscle protein synthesis only lasts 24-72 hours. Makes sense and we all know this. However, "weekend warriors" doing the same muscles on consecutive days don't see less growth than people who spread out the workouts... How is this possible?
How come I don’t see a mobility centered study. Have you seen a bodybuilder run or try to scratch their back? Is hilarious. Most people’s range of motion and stability is crap and that limits the length they can use when training. If you have a smaller range of motion you stretch less the muscle. Also makes them prone to injuries.
7:36 No way my body can recover from wednesday to Friday unless i only do 1 exercice for 3 sets with RIR, no drop no rest pauses and that exercice is not hack squat. My shoulder needs to be spaced out from chest due to joint issues.
1 - My understanding of slow on eccentric/fast on concentric wasn't about hypertrophy per se - eccentric yeah maybe, because you are stronger there and can really strain and beat up the muscle and get closer to failure and all that good stuff - but the concentric fast part is about developing athleticism, specifically plyometric/explosive power, not hypertrophy. 2 - sEMG is no good for determining exercise selection for HYPERTROPHY, yes, but - ironically it might be better for determining/measuring relative/current STRENGTH of a muscle, by detecting how much of the existing muscle fiber is being activated by neuron signals - you could get a good picture of your "ceiling" so to speak, by seeing just how much muscle you're currently using when you flex and how much % you have left to max out - this kind of info could be very useful for powerlifters, to see where they are lacking 3 - yeah, individual bodypart splits are for casual lifters and young guys just looking to get into the gym and focusing on hitting one thing 4 - I'm starting to think that, of all the major variables that all lifters in particular must deal with, recovery is the most extreme in its range of possibilities, and I tend to find that (good quality) sleep and attendant recovery have the widest range of effects on gains. Personally, I simply cannot train the same muscle two days in a row without experiencing obvious performance drops and/or increased recovery issues afterwards and/or injuries. The older I get, the more injuries start to crop up and when you're injured as an older person, it just takes that much more time to recover, and when you remember that the lack of proper recovery was what led to the injury in the first place....you wise up and stop training the same parts on consecutive days - eventually you stop training on consecutive days period.
Really wish there was more studies on stretch focused supramaximal training. Ive gone consistently once a week for like 8 years and got a natty >27ffmi. I always feel like going more than once a week and doing that training style would just make me sick though.
makes no sense, because the rep is no more than tension. The Time under tension does not matter that much, Rep times between 2-8 seconds relates to the same stimulus.
How tf is it different. Moving weight from point A to point B is not different ftom person to person. If you are talking about intensity then you should be going to or close to failure rvery time
@@senjai77308 I didn't say anything about intensity. I said time as in timing of reps, a man doing 1 pull up in 60 seconds is much harder than another doing 10 x 1 second pull ups.
@@changthunderwang1294 doing 1 pull ups in 60 seconds is totally pointless. According to studies how long you do the concecntric doesn't matter at all, so you can do it as fast as you want. And the benefits of slowing doen essentric stop at about 5-6 seconds. So more than 7 seconds per rep don't bring anything much but additional fatigue
Fitness industry fucked themselves with different ideologies and concepts, making the avg person confused to the point where they have to resort coaching products or buy expensive plans so they dont have to think about everything .
Why is the 7 day week so important? Not days between a musclegroup is trained? I do push pull legs. Because i am getting along in the number of birtdaycandles i have to puff out every year, i take a restday every two trainingdays. Sometimes 2 restdays. If a gap between training a major musclegroup gets bigger, i include 2 alien worksets in the training before the rest. So i roll over the week consistantly. I do stretch emphasis full rom, and include the excersises you recomend. Thanks for your and your fellows, very informative videos
I think twice a week vs bro split comparison is misleading. I've found so long as volume is the same they are just the same, Ive found this to be true when in my 20's as well as still now in my 40's If anything bro split slightly edges out twice a week I've found personally. But it might come down to individual work capacity, and muscle density. Yo also have to take into consideration that on a bro split each muscle is still getting stimulus on different days, so it isn't truly only 'once a week' which also adds to total weekly volume. (if for example counting pull ups as half sets for biceps, or presses as half sets for triceps as the science often does) Also Id argue the often argument ive seen on quality of sets its null void also given doing multiple muscles groups per session means one muscle group is always more fatigued than the other no matter how many times they are alternated. On a bro split you are actually getting more quality sets per that muscle group as it is the only muscle group you are working that day (I've found this to be true also in terms of strength numbers overtime) That said I do still enjoy twice a week at times and so long as volume is equated for the differences are extremely minimal and twice a week being 'far optimal' is massively overhyped (This is coming from myself who built a lot of muscle in my first few years using 3x a week)
Would you look into the effectiveness of Tens and EMT units? I know they are useful for rehabilitation and muscle targeting, but videos about it,like Pigmie, make them seem useful for building(minimal) core strenght. I also wonder how good they would work for glute muscles or maybe some group may benefit from them in particular.
5-50 reps but atleast for me its easier to reach failure the closer you are to lowest end of that range. After that you risk lactic acid build up or your lungs being a limiter.
And what will science tell us next week. I would like to see his "science based gains" in 5 years time. The fact of the matter is, a piece of paper can say what ever it wants but until there is physical evidence the words are worth nothing. Makes me wonder how all the elite bodybuilders like Ronnie, Jay, Dexter, etc did it without Mr Wolf's science. LOL
It amazes me how Milo, Mike and shit are still recommending stretch emphasis. It has been debunked by their own research, and only creates more fatigue for less or, at best, same stimulus. They should at least understand the difference between stretch and longer lengths. That said, I wonder how long they’ll continue with this stretch BS.
My understanding is that their own research concluded that lengthened partials were found to be no better than full range of motion. Thats very different than a stretch emphasis. Tons of research has shown that muscle hypertrophy is increased when an exercise stretches the target muscle more than one that stops in the mid range
Bro split for the win. I train 9 sets per body part per day 6 days a week. If I trained each muscle group twice a week. I'd double my time in the gym and I wouldn't double my muscle growth. I'd just end up divorced😂😂
you dont have to double the time. train a muscles twice a week mean day 1 you do 5 sets and day 2 you do 4 sets that is 9 sets total for chest. twice a week doesn't mean double the volume.
Jo Milo i cant agree with you on the body part split i did push pull with Legs included and push pull Legs normal and upper lower for a few year but i have been on a plateau for year amd i switcht to a bodypart split and now it is going throught te roof the gains i mean so i would have agreed with you 2 years ago but not anymore maybe advanced lifters benefit from more rest inbetween workouts
I just want to say as you get older(>50), training muscles on consecutive days will introduce additional fatigue if you are training to failure or RIR2 and lead oh fxxk not another workout! n=1. Most of these studies and conclusions are done with people under 30. Correct me if I'm wrong Wolf.
Time under tension is valid in the following sense... the most tension is in the lengthened position.. so lengthened partials means that the muscles are in more tension during the duration of a set. if the reps are the same then time under tension as a concept stands... btw in your research for lengthened partials versus normal reps, did you manage to do the same no. of reps between the two? when employing lengthened partials, I cannot do as many reps.. so when you trained to failure, was the no of reps the same between the two?
![[ BAGI BAGI ID SAKURA ] KLASSIK HOUSE MEWAH DI SAKURA SCHOOL SIMULATOR](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NZx3f5mAiRY/mqdefault.jpg)
Time under tension is just bro talk for "don't fling the weights around"
yeah basically maintain control vs allow gravity or the machine to do the work
Tut is pencil neck rhetoric, you gave the bro translation
Damn...you are right
@watsonkushmaster3067 when did bros start using the science based vernacular?
@@rockyevans1584 when bro science was borned
From the jeff clip it seems that he isn't even talking about time under tension. He just says that you want tension in the working muscle
Yeah. That wasn't a fair criticism.
The Jeff glazing is crazy
@@chiggs5483 This isn't glazing
Yeah, that was a weird clip to choose.
@@chiggs5483 If you think that's glazing, consult an optometrist.
Hey, Milo! Would you be open to doing a yearly upload of a hypertrophy checklist that changes based off the ever changing literature? It can be challenging to keep up with the new findings and having a series that sort of gives you the barebones or most important things to keep in mind for programing could be helpful.
Yearly?! I need that shirt monthly at least
Do we think the principles change? Progressive overload, reasonable volume, quality exercise selection, proper nutrition, enough sleep, and pound away at consistency. People have been building quality physiques for decades on that. Science doesn’t help much for 99% of lifters.
This is the greatest idea I’ve heard today 🎉
Actually they don't change that much. And Your approach should not simply change because of one single research. Multiple papers are needed to make a change. And those take time, years
@@RafaelW8half a year is good for both the viewers and the creators
1. Time Under Tension
2. Using sEMG to identify best exercises
3. BodyPart Splits
4. Large minimum amount of rest between workouts
You're welcome.
Its a scientist's channel, I expect people like listening to explanations to actually understand a topic instead of reading bullet point lists.
You sir are a true hero
@@rodrigovaccari7547 you are wrong.
You could forget the idea of a “week”. I do a four day on, one day rest routine based on Lou Ferrigno’s plan. Works for me…
Now I want Jeff Nippard to compare RP Strength vs MyoAdapt
They're all in the same camp and Jeff is at least maintains a good relationship with both of them. No way Jeff is touching the AI apps especially since he owns an AI diet app (macro factor)
Jeff uses Gravitus app.
Looking forward to the RP AI reaching sentience and attacking MyoAdapts AI...
MacroFactor (Jeff) has announced to release a training app too
You're better than your thumbnails.
Don't be a dumbell
I was thinking the same thing. I get this is UA-cam but he doesn't need to do it and it actively takes away from his argument. He has to be above this youtuber bullshit if he wants to present himself as an authority
💯
Loved jeff's face tho
Yeah he looks like he's going to wear a b0mb into a day care and blow it
These debunked workout ideas will soon be redebunked and then bunked then debunked again because science.
maybe, maybe not. But the amount of exercise science research in the last 5-10 years is more than in the 70 years before it. the field has modernized a lot. so we know a lot more than we did 10 years ago.
I need a rebunk
I need to know if kids still use bunk beds. Or has that been debunked. So they now use regulars beds. Also known as debunk beds.
lol so true
@@NeuronIronyeah totally, which is why so many of the good coaches are always posting about how they've changed their minds about various methodologies, since new evidence has been released. These are exciting times.
Ryan hasn't done surface EMG in quite a while, he has agreed with you that this has been debunked. This is the second time you've used him as the SEMG example, well after he stopped using it. Jeremy used it too but has been spared.
And again, Ryan finally used SEMG to prevent other muscles to be excited too much when they shouldn't be the limited factor. I found that was a very good approach: not choosing an exercice that excites a lot a targeted muscle, but more one where others are less excited. I still don't think it's a bad idea.
And yet Ryan still gives mediocre advice
The professional yapper that says too many irrelevant mediocre jokes. People just want to listen to the damn relevant info
Oooh nooo :( thank god you were here to defend him
He 100% was using it for a while though after it became known that it’s an ineffective way to test for hypertrophy
For 40 years I've been lifting as the bronze era bodybuilders did, 3 times a week, full body, I'm no steve Reeves ,lol, but it worked for them and it works for me
As a teen I started lifting that way during the 90's (full body every other day) back when everyone was doing a bro split. I was laughed at a few times yet made better gains and faster than near everyone else and surpassed most other lifters in those early years.
(I later as an intermediate made better gains on a bro split) But the full body training gave me a solid base to work from and can still be a solid split at any level
@papaspaulding , lve been using the same York and weider charts that came with my 1st set of weights, all these decades. If it ain't broke don't try and fix it,lol.
@@RoyyMak Haha same. That's how I stumbled onto doing full body, basically I knew nothing and just did 3 sets to failure (then 4) of every exercise on the chart in one workout every other day via one of those exercise charts which came with my first set of weider dumbbells lol
@papaspaulding , when l do some of the old school exercises in the gym l get stared at like I don't know what I'm doing, yeah tell that to Leroy colbert, first guy to get 21 inch arms steroid free,lol
@@RoyyMak I remember one excercise on there I used to do which built me a really big chest back then and also a wide neck, basically you did a wrestlers arch I think they call it on the floor then perform a dumbbell flye. so it turns into a kind of decline flye movement with a really deep stretch. certainly attracts some "WTF" looks if doing it in the gym on a floor mat lol
Old timers advised on explosive concentric and slower eccentric.
A very informative video no doubt.. here's some food for thought..
1. Clickbait: Using 4 of the most popular fitness influencers in your thumbnail just to gain more viewership?
2. Double Standard: You pointed out Ryan Humiston for using EMG devices; why not point out Jeremy Ethier as well?
Jeremy always says that EMG "might" predict muscle growth but there isn't conclusive evidence. He never states that anything is absolutely conclusive when it isn't. He also updates his advice regularly based on new findings.
Ryan also stopped uploading emg series videos brother@@carolinescott7062
Consistency; Compounds; Controlled,Clean correct calories- six C’s there my free programme
How many of those studies have repeatability? How many contradict one another?
Watched this video and I now use the term “whack out” instead of “work out”. Thank you, Dr. Milo.
Milo, may I suggest adding time stamps to the video? I think I speak for many if I say it would be appreciated! Time is valuable. Thx! 🙏🏼
THANK YOU FOR NUMBER 4!! For the longest time I have always had the thought lingering in the back of my head like "wait a minute, what if i just equate the volume working back to back sessions, effectively making it an extended rest period?" and always thought this was perhaps stupid because I've never seen anyone in the science based social media side address this, and now I have my answer. You've gained a new sub. Thank you.
Even with all the hate Jeff Cavaliere gets these days, back in 2019 he was the biggest science based lifting channel and was the first that made working out start to make sense for myself and many others. Always gonna have some degree of respect for him because of that, even if a lot of his information isn't entirely accurate.
Yes, but the problem is that he (and others) needs to produce content to keep views. And he established himself as a "science-based fitness coach", so he can't make gaming videos, or travel, or unboxing gadgets😂
i like PPL with 2 days off per week so that the ppl rotates around those days. This allows more time between leg work..... i can never recover legs on time.
This is the true issue with PPL. If you’re hammering legs week in and week out. Eventually 2 days off won’t be enough.
I agree on the programming. Bro split is outdated. There is no reason to smash hard on one day for some muscle group and rest an entire week. Upper body for example, can recover a lot faster than lower body and can take more frequency than lower body. Imo I like the 3 days full body split because it gives the most bang for buck for casual gym goers that are looking for gym life balance.
If you train the same muscles on consecutive days, then how are they meant to repair and adapt within 24 hrs ??
I just moved from an ULPPL program to your 5-day full-body program. I am absolutely loving it so far. You just addressed the one question I had on it regarding training the same muscle two days in a row. I was surprised that I recovered fine for the next workout.
ur PO is probably crap. idk, dont sound good
0:30 the slow squat down with the watch and the nod 🤣I almost died laughing.
You missed out lengthened partials 😄
they wont admit theyre wrong because that would entail them admitting someone without a phd knows more than them
lengthened partials literally grow equal/greater amount of muscle as full ROM. so not rly debunked.
@@overlord3481 no they dont lol
their study literarily proved they dont
@@eitanslivko8600 it's a win for lengthened partials. equal muscle growth - not less. lengthened partials are way easier and less effort to do than full ROM anyway. So definitely not "debunked".
@@overlord3481 my man, the lengthened partials were literarily worse according to the study.
not to mention that the study was extremely biased and built in a way that would make the lengthened partials more effective ( you can check figure 2 for that matter).
and they said before the study was finished that they're twice as beneficial than full rom so the study did disprove their claims.
not to mention they only checked muscles that benefit from longer lengths due to their sarcomeres operating on or close to the descending limb.
also they're not easier because they induce more stretch mediated fatigue something not mentioned in the study.
7:39 Are you serious ? Legs wednesday then Friday?
Yes sir🎉 just split it up - quads dominant one day/posterior chain the other
@@СлаволюбДробняк I'm ok with that.
You should consider releasing a white paper about what the algorithm is. Open sourcing that with an appropriate license would benefit you in getting crowdourced feedback and critique and help imporve things long term. It also provides transparency to the consumer.
Going to go out on a limb here and speculate that 97% of gym goers simply need to be told 'Get off your a** and just do something!'
97% of the population perhaps, but definitely not 97% of gym goers. Most people I know got the effort part down but they have no clue how to actually optimally train and recover
How can you argue that body part split is bad when most pros seem to train this way?
It's the difference between 'effective' vs 'optimal'...bro splits are absolutely effective, they're just slightly suboptimal. This is for speed of progress. The endpoint is the same either way.
Because people with elevated levels of testosterone have longer hypertrophy responses to stimulus, so they can train very hard on the day and grow muscle well after the initial stimulus.
because pros are injecting drugs into their blood?
@@SeuOupros are always looking to improve. They desicate their lives to this sport & turn every Stone to become the best they Can.
Yet they all do bodypart splits.
Think that is just coincidence? Or are these «stupid bros» that dont understand Milos videos
@@Djdkdkdndkzn1 Pros have more testosterone then you (hopefully). Everything is different for them.
In gymnastics, you do pull-ups, dips, push-ups, rope-climbs, for "warm ups," every day, before your regular 3 hour work-out. It's all anaerobic, five days a week, all the same body parts, and nobody had problems with recovery. Nobody watched their diet, either. In a couple of years, you're pretty jacked.
This is almost all relatively small people who almost universally began training as teens or even children. Of course they have no trouble with recovery and are lean - anyone who couldn't maintain that rate of work and had a body heavy enough to make those calisthenics require a lot of recovery washed out immediately from gymnastics.
@@fatterperdurabo42069 Got any scientific studies to support your assumption that recovery ability changes significantly with age? I've watch several hundred YT vids on "Over 50" resisitance training, and only found one vid recently, highlighting studies that recovery changes very little with age.
Monday- Legs Tuesday-Push Wednesday - Pull Thursday - rest Friday - Legs Saturday- Upperbody
I don’t get the hate the community takes towards one another. It’s off putting. Especially, when the people criticizing admit issues and have much better advice than the community did when they started or the criticism is just a misrepresentation.
When I swapped to an emphasis on TUT, my gains improved markedly. I made sure every set went for at least 50 seconds and saw much better results than before, without any change in terms of approaching failure. Part of this may be attributable to spending more time in the stretched position, but regardless, TUT has been a godsend.
The age of men at my gym ranges between 18 & 75 (approximately), and I think this is fairly typical in public gyms these days. As 99% of the research studies Milo uses were carried out using males in their 20s then many of Milo's recommendations may not apply to a large number of men who train in public gyms - certainly not to men over 55.
For these men some, maybe many, of Milo's recommendations are no less bogus than the UA-camrs Milo repeatedly criticises.
Maybe UA-cam strength/hypertrophy gurus should realise the range of ages in their audience & be a little more careful about the applicability of their recommendations.
I agree, attacking other fitness channels is petty and reeks of female energy.
Milo could literally tell you the plot of a movie and it would still sound condescending and make you feel like an idiot when he's done.
🤣😂🤣🤣😂
You might be able to recovery from the fatigue of training a given muscle the next day but won’t you still be recovering from the damage from the previous session. Also, MYOPs would still be elevated from the session the day before. It doesn’t make sense to train the muscle so soon after.
When I'm trying to get time under tension, I don't worry about the rep speed. I just avoid relaxed positions/angles between reps. For example I don't lower the weight fully in curls, or I don't lift it up to 90 degrees vertical in preacher curls.
Time under tension is not specific to the idea of muscle growth, it is about finding a technique and tempo to perform an exercise. This allows for the development of good technique and long term gains while mitigating injury risk. I don't anyone that bought into EMG as a serious step in training. Bro splits are a viable way to train. So is full body training and other training schemes. It all depends on where you are at in your training and whether or not it is time to train.
I started out doing full body training 3 days a week and when I plateaued after 2 years, I went to a Mentzer/Yates bro split, one set to failure technique for 6 months and then a push/pull/legs protocol.
The answer to what works best for programming is usually, it depends. Depends on your level of experience, goals, time availability and so on.
Well, according to to my nonscience based experience and at age 69, do whatever you find comfortable , always seeking progress . Bottom line, keep it challenging and simple. In no time, you’ll see good results- for your age group.
Milo, would you agree on the fact that long length partials mainly affect the distal region? That'd turn it into a big no for bodybuilding purposes, especially for arms and shoulders training. Noone wants a distal region too developed that it kills your biceps peak. Can also make your delts and triceps feel less "pumped". I think it's great for health benefits and injury prevention (stronger muscles near the tendon and stronger tendons as well), but not ideal when adopting it as your main method for muscle growth.
House of Hypertrophy just uploaded a video about that. I've been saying that for a while, but it seems that we're getting more evidence on it now. It's pretty obvious imho, you can even feel it when training and soreness will also be more prominent in that area, which reinforces the idea.
I have literally never heard of anyone with an "overdeveloped distal" end of bicep. Stop stressing over imaginary problems. I also don't understand how it would kill your peak considering how you can't change your tendon length.
@@overlord3481 There are studies addressing the growth of different portions of the muscle which show this isn't some made up bs... It's pretty logical if you ask me, as the most stressed portion will be the one that can be led to better growth. It would kill your peak because you want your biceps to be more prominent right in the middle. If the sides are too developed, the middle looks way less impressive. Especially if you have long biceps insertions, this is a big no for bodybuilding aesthetics.
House of Hypertrophy just uploaded a video about this, but you could even draw your own conclusions with the "Optimize Muscle Growth" video he uploaded a month ago. There you can see how the distal region is getting stimulated disproportionately in comparison to the other 2 with long lengthened partials. And yes, you and I have both seen people with a distal region that's too big multiple times. There are multiple influencers with arms as big as my head with no peak at all which are either doing LLP or exercises that emphasize the stretch like lying dumbbell curls or bayesian curls. Could tell many names but I don't wanna trigger anybody. Follow the LLP trace and you'll get to their door. If you're up to date you know which guys I'm talking about. No hate towards them, but I think they hopped on the LLP wagon too soon without considering this logic.
This is why exercise science ruined bodybuilding culture. I could confidently bet a grand that you don't have an overall good set of arms to be nerding out over this minutiae
@@danielmccarten4357 And you'd lose a grand for acting like a fool over someone you don't know. Plus, will a picture somehow make any argument better or worse? I can show you my arms, they are pretty good (1,75m and 96kg bodybuilder). Apart from that, I'm the one trying to debunk the "exercise science" latest trend with logic and factual information while being open about disagreement and debate. That's why I've written this straight to Milo like I've done to Mike or Nippard.
I don't understand where your comment logic comes from, there's a whole legion of guys defending LLP that suspiciously don't have a great set of arms. Idk man, join the dots... I'm defending old school methods in this case. Being critical with something doesn't turn you into a whiny nerd.
@@microondasletal You're thinking too much, do some preacher curls and concentration curls; you'll be good.
I just workout till I want to cry and then move on to a new muscle group. And as long as I wake up motivated to cry again I just keep doing it. Only when I wake up and have a panic attack from the idea of crying in my workout do I then adjust my #’s…
It’s pretty simple. Do stuff till you want to cry. The man who cries more grows more muscle.
Been doing body part splits for 18 years.
Natural PRs
Bench:365
Squat: 405
Deadlift: 425
In no way saying he is wrong, dude is a lot more qualified than myself, but you can definitely build real proper muscle and strength by doing 1 muscle group a week.
I think the issue is most people have no idea how to push themselves to the point where it can work as well as it does for myself.
You can go from New York to London by boat, as well, but there are some faster ways with modern approaches.
@@MAbild7 Absolutely, but what if i really like boat rides?
the reason that the body part split doesnt work for people is because you have to go train at least five days a week consistently as well as recover in time
@@spontaneousbootay That's true. I do 4 on 1 off. Shit load of protein lol
So crazy. That weightlifters have been training two lifts (with a couple of accessories) for 4-6 times a week, sometimes twice a day, for decades and it didn't seem to stop them from progressing greatly. But then again Soviets in the 80's followed their lifters pretty much nationwide to accrue data. Now that's not hypertrophy training specifically, but you might think it's fair to assume it's not deleterious to hypertrophy either if they were successfully progressing.
They're not comparable. Weightlifters rarely go to failure.
Thanks for pointing out the RP episode. I get too many RP notifications these days that I ignore all unless I see another PhD in the description
Upper/lower 6 days a week is def the best 6 day split
My boi wearing a 'Maidenless' T-shirt like an absolute Souls chad!
Incredibile quality of the video and information. People like you are really a blessing for us bodybuilding enthusiastic. Thank you so much from Italy, hope you grow your channel bro!
Science can't stand alone. Doesn't matter if it's old or new.
TUTs between 15s and 75s produce no significant difference in hypertrophy. Rep speed hasn't been shown to matter if you do 5-30 reps lasting 15-75s. Also reps DO matter. 1 rep lasting 15 seconds does not work as well as 5 reps lasting 15 seconds.
How dare you suggest the bros never had swag!
Bright coloured stripy/patterned clown-esque parachute pants!
crop tops!
Dr Martins in the gym
denim cut off short shorts
sleeve-less lumberjack shirts...
Man the 90's were wild
Im struggling to reconcile how it's okay to lift if you're still sore, but how much people preach progressive overload. I can't lift as much if I don't recover, let alone lift more
5) lengthened partials
NOt gonna happen since he based his entire channel, business and personality on those
@@logomarkzI mean, that’s what he studied for his phd. It’s part of his expertise. And he’s the first to report that they found no difference between lengthened partials and full ROM in the most recent study.
@@Inzane8 Only when the exercises are already focusing a lot on the lengthened part
@@Inzane8 so it was an overhyped marketing gimmick all along. Who would have thought....
I mean if you consider lengthened partials give the same results as full rom, then I don’t think it’s overhyped at all
Another thing that has been debunked is focusing on the squeeze and the peak contraction.
it is spiritually nourishing to squeeze a peak contraction though
More volume is good. But insane amounts in one workout is only great when you’re on drugs and focussed on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
Excellent summary of key issues! All references supplied, love it.
Awesome video. The part about who should choose what split is gem information.
ryan simply uses the semg to determine which muscles take over or are most excited when doing certain variations. it has worked for me immensely as a bodybuilder. to ignore his and my gains is simply unscientific because other people were using emg wrong. thats like saying that the ruler isnt useful because its not a good baseball bat. his program is only 20 too and i now have a library of the absolute best techniques
I'd like to see a video explaining why we shouldn't believe any of the former studies, and why these current studies trump all previous findings. What was it about these studies that brings so much certainty? It would be a great discussion. Otherwise any coach can just say their competitors are all outdated, and use confirmation bias to find studies that contradict what all their competitors are preaching. it's a bit of a "pick me" positioning move.
0:54 I actually do "one rep" to build muscle-a 20-second sustained hold at 70%+ of my one-rep max is the functional equivalent of a set of 10 isotonic lifts because they have the same time under tension. But I get similar/the same gains without beating up my joints and connective tissues. I've switched to almost exclusively overcoming and yielding isometrics for this reason and it's working great.
I can see doing that with bicep curls. What else do you do it with? Bench press?
Static holds aren't really reps. If you hold a front lever for 10 seconds, is that a "rep"?
@@jl3114 Lat pulldowns, shoulder press, abdominal machines, back extensions, overhead tricep extensions, just about everything. Don't get me wrong, going through a full range of motion can be useful too, like with a squat rack, but with all this new research showing that lengthened partials work just as well for hypertrophy as full ROM in theory there's no reason why isometric lengthened partials at sufficient loads shouldn't have similar effects for hypertrophy as isotonic lengthened partials. Eliminating the movement aspect saves joint damage and lessens fatigue and to some extent takes the guesswork or variability of tension levels out of the equation which I think helps most with things like bicep curls where at the top and bottom of the movement there's basically zero or very little tension the way it's traditionally performed in gyms.
I feel a lot less tired and beat up the next day doing things this way which allows me to do more frequent training during the week.
@@freehatespeech6804It is but it's unclear how many pounds that would be for a given muscle. There's not a clear or clean way to measure transferability between bodyweight and gym lifts, so a person who can do 10 pullups can probably also hold something like their bodyweight number for 20 seconds on a lat pulldown in the maximum contracted position. Certainly that's been my experience; I used heavy isometric holds to replace conventional lifts and in about 7 months I went from ~80 lbs on my lat pulldowns to ~190 lbs doing 20 second holds 3 times to replace 3 sets of conventional reps since that's the rough equivalent time under tension between the two.
For the sake of comparison it's better (and fairer) to compare bodyweight to bodyweight and regular weightlifting to regular weightlifting in terms of numbers.
@@schoolbonddogs Awesome stuff man. Yeah I think beginners should always start with full ROM though to learn the movement and build foundational strength, I wasn't going to switch to lengthened partials in most exercises until full ROM starts to go stale on me, but maybe I'll give these isometric holds at length a try. When you think about it, it makes sense because gymnasts who use rings and hold their weight with their arms stretched out - their fucking triceps are huge. And alot of those guys don't bench
I have been working out since 1984 missed maybe one week when I had pneumonia. I have tried every workout every combination and the time under tension is the only thing I saw significant gains in instead of doing 20 push-ups times 10 if I do 10 push-ups times 10 but each push-up is one second up hold a second one second down hold a second and do the same thing with Neutral grip chin-ups I saw much gains. So from now on no matter what the study say I’m doing lower numbers, extremely strict slow repetitions as I saw by far the best gains.
Somewhat contradictory. Each muscle should be worked twice/week, since muscle protein synthesis only lasts 24-72 hours. Makes sense and we all know this. However, "weekend warriors" doing the same muscles on consecutive days don't see less growth than people who spread out the workouts... How is this possible?
How come I don’t see a mobility centered study. Have you seen a bodybuilder run or try to scratch their back? Is hilarious. Most people’s range of motion and stability is crap and that limits the length they can use when training. If you have a smaller range of motion you stretch less the muscle. Also makes them prone to injuries.
7:36 No way my body can recover from wednesday to Friday unless i only do 1 exercice for 3 sets with RIR, no drop no rest pauses and that exercice is not hack squat. My shoulder needs to be spaced out from chest due to joint issues.
When is myodapt gonna release!! ??You keep talking about it. I’m very excited to use it
1 - My understanding of slow on eccentric/fast on concentric wasn't about hypertrophy per se - eccentric yeah maybe, because you are stronger there and can really strain and beat up the muscle and get closer to failure and all that good stuff - but the concentric fast part is about developing athleticism, specifically plyometric/explosive power, not hypertrophy.
2 - sEMG is no good for determining exercise selection for HYPERTROPHY, yes, but - ironically it might be better for determining/measuring relative/current STRENGTH of a muscle, by detecting how much of the existing muscle fiber is being activated by neuron signals - you could get a good picture of your "ceiling" so to speak, by seeing just how much muscle you're currently using when you flex and how much % you have left to max out - this kind of info could be very useful for powerlifters, to see where they are lacking
3 - yeah, individual bodypart splits are for casual lifters and young guys just looking to get into the gym and focusing on hitting one thing
4 - I'm starting to think that, of all the major variables that all lifters in particular must deal with, recovery is the most extreme in its range of possibilities, and I tend to find that (good quality) sleep and attendant recovery have the widest range of effects on gains. Personally, I simply cannot train the same muscle two days in a row without experiencing obvious performance drops and/or increased recovery issues afterwards and/or injuries. The older I get, the more injuries start to crop up and when you're injured as an older person, it just takes that much more time to recover, and when you remember that the lack of proper recovery was what led to the injury in the first place....you wise up and stop training the same parts on consecutive days - eventually you stop training on consecutive days period.
Really wish there was more studies on stretch focused supramaximal training. Ive gone consistently once a week for like 8 years and got a natty >27ffmi.
I always feel like going more than once a week and doing that training style would just make me sick though.
Maybe no need for a full bro split, but I have noticed my upper body def grows more when I do legs on a different day 🤷🏻♂️
Does this matter for me at 59, and natty? Or is my recovery longer? Should I follow the new plan of your conclusion?
Not giving up bosu ball squats no matter what the science says
you dont need to train until failure if you are already a failure
Not a doctor. You're Doctorate Milo Wolf.
MILO, KEEP SHOWING OTHER UA-cam CHANNELS YOU’RE IN
I look to you for the science, Dr. Milo.
Wise choice.
10 reps for 1 man is very different from 10 reps from another man. That's why time is a better unit of measurement than reps.
makes no sense, because the rep is no more than tension. The Time under tension does not matter that much, Rep times between 2-8 seconds relates to the same stimulus.
How tf is it different. Moving weight from point A to point B is not different ftom person to person. If you are talking about intensity then you should be going to or close to failure rvery time
@@senjai77308 I didn't say anything about intensity. I said time as in timing of reps, a man doing 1 pull up in 60 seconds is much harder than another doing 10 x 1 second pull ups.
@@flow1188 Do you think a man doing 2 second pull ups is the same as another man doing 8 second pull ups? Stay weak.
@@changthunderwang1294 doing 1 pull ups in 60 seconds is totally pointless. According to studies how long you do the concecntric doesn't matter at all, so you can do it as fast as you want. And the benefits of slowing doen essentric stop at about 5-6 seconds. So more than 7 seconds per rep don't bring anything much but additional fatigue
Time under tension is a myth, but best duration of a set is 20-70 seconds? Sounds like time under tension to me lol
Video liked for "Maidenless" shirt. I am sure there was good content as well, but the like was secured there.
Great video!
7:36 if you are trying to hit every muscle twice, why is there only 1 chest and 1 back day? Am I missing something?
Fitness industry fucked themselves with different ideologies and concepts, making the avg person confused to the point where they have to resort coaching products or buy expensive plans so they dont have to think about everything .
your recent study as well disproved the affect of lengthened partials
so you should include it here
Why is the 7 day week so important? Not days between a musclegroup is trained? I do push pull legs. Because i am getting along in the number of birtdaycandles i have to puff out every year, i take a restday every two trainingdays. Sometimes 2 restdays. If a gap between training a major musclegroup gets bigger, i include 2 alien worksets in the training before the rest. So i roll over the week consistantly. I do stretch emphasis full rom, and include the excersises you recomend. Thanks for your and your fellows, very informative videos
Ah. I did not watch the whole thing before responding
Again
Thank you for the valuable information as always.
I think twice a week vs bro split comparison is misleading. I've found so long as volume is the same they are just the same, Ive found this to be true when in my 20's as well as still now in my 40's
If anything bro split slightly edges out twice a week I've found personally. But it might come down to individual work capacity, and muscle density.
Yo also have to take into consideration that on a bro split each muscle is still getting stimulus on different days, so it isn't truly only 'once a week' which also adds to total weekly volume. (if for example counting pull ups as half sets for biceps, or presses as half sets for triceps as the science often does)
Also Id argue the often argument ive seen on quality of sets its null void also given doing multiple muscles groups per session means one muscle group is always more fatigued than the other no matter how many times they are alternated.
On a bro split you are actually getting more quality sets per that muscle group as it is the only muscle group you are working that day (I've found this to be true also in terms of strength numbers overtime)
That said I do still enjoy twice a week at times and so long as volume is equated for the differences are extremely minimal and twice a week being 'far optimal' is massively overhyped (This is coming from myself who built a lot of muscle in my first few years using 3x a week)
In the running for more advertisements for seeking ur products then even me 😮
Greg comments on each video harder than last time
1st is sucked out of finger
Is English your first language? We have exactly the same proverb in Russian.
@@yvyneath no, I'm Russian speaker too
Здарова✌️ пока писал, не подумал, что может англоязычные не поймут
Would you look into the effectiveness of Tens and EMT units? I know they are useful for rehabilitation and muscle targeting, but videos about it,like Pigmie, make them seem useful for building(minimal) core strenght. I also wonder how good they would work for glute muscles or maybe some group may benefit from them in particular.
for building muscle while injured, blood flow restriction is probably a far more efficient technique
5-50 reps but atleast for me its easier to reach failure the closer you are to lowest end of that range. After that you risk lactic acid build up or your lungs being a limiter.
you didn't debunk time under tension
in a single repetition the tension varies greatly
I agree, you can train two consecutive days, same muscle,
....if you train like a pouzzy..
And what will science tell us next week. I would like to see his "science based gains" in 5 years time. The fact of the matter is, a piece of paper can say what ever it wants but until there is physical evidence the words are worth nothing. Makes me wonder how all the elite bodybuilders like Ronnie, Jay, Dexter, etc did it without Mr Wolf's science. LOL
It amazes me how Milo, Mike and shit are still recommending stretch emphasis. It has been debunked by their own research, and only creates more fatigue for less or, at best, same stimulus. They should at least understand the difference between stretch and longer lengths. That said, I wonder how long they’ll continue with this stretch BS.
My understanding is that their own research concluded that lengthened partials were found to be no better than full range of motion. Thats very different than a stretch emphasis. Tons of research has shown that muscle hypertrophy is increased when an exercise stretches the target muscle more than one that stops in the mid range
5th one should be lengthed partials .
The wolf 🐺 is right 👍
Bro split for the win. I train 9 sets per body part per day 6 days a week. If I trained each muscle group twice a week. I'd double my time in the gym and I wouldn't double my muscle growth. I'd just end up divorced😂😂
you dont have to double the time. train a muscles twice a week mean day 1 you do 5 sets and day 2 you do 4 sets that is 9 sets total for chest. twice a week doesn't mean double the volume.
@@Han-nk3io That's cool then. My volume and time would stay the same but my optimisation would improve.
sure but doing full body everytime is crazy timeconsuming lol
Jo Milo i cant agree with you on the body part split i did push pull with Legs included and push pull Legs normal and upper lower for a few year but i have been on a plateau for year amd i switcht to a bodypart split and now it is going throught te roof the gains i mean so i would have agreed with you 2 years ago but not anymore maybe advanced lifters benefit from more rest inbetween workouts
Science is just the current best theory.
I just want to say as you get older(>50), training muscles on consecutive days will introduce additional fatigue if you are training to failure or RIR2 and lead oh fxxk not another workout! n=1. Most of these studies and conclusions are done with people under 30. Correct me if I'm wrong Wolf.
1. Lengthened Partials are optimal.
2. Yes
@@entrancemperium5506 Sorry, number 1 is the myth that was debunked.
@@platonicguardian6923 Only for exercises that already put a lot of emphasis on the lengthened position/stretch the muscles well
Time under tension is valid in the following sense... the most tension is in the lengthened position.. so lengthened partials means that the muscles are in more tension during the duration of a set. if the reps are the same then time under tension as a concept stands... btw in your research for lengthened partials versus normal reps, did you manage to do the same no. of reps between the two? when employing lengthened partials, I cannot do as many reps.. so when you trained to failure, was the no of reps the same between the two?
For a four day split, what do you think of Push Pull Legs + 1 day of Full Body?
Just do upper/lower,
can you recover?