Awesome. Awesome study and awesome breakdown by Martin. I love how he's not using the study to dictate what training should be. It's just giving insight into what is a likely outcome.
I’ve posted my frustration in the past following evidence based recommendations. I feel that interpretations of studies has been bad at best in the past. HOWEVER, I see things are getting better and I really appreciate that. Good job Steve! The coaching and recommendations seem to be more on point these days as well as consideration for individual differences. I’m glad we aren’t debating absolutes like “train to failure always” or “never train to failure”.
The way this study was conducted should be a model for future research, so many the studies being so far away from real training really makes it’s relevance to real training so much less. Also having training footage is huge.
Lyle versus Brad face to face would be awesome. Maybe Milo versus Lyle. Steve could introduce it like a UFC competition, "Let's get it on." then let them go.
@@serpentking8503 Correct about what? If you actually listen to Brad, he never tells people to do 52 sets. He just did a high volume study to continue to show that volume and hypertrophy have a strong relationship. Nowhere does Schoenfeld or any of the others in that study say to do 52 sets a week or to not apply progressive overload. It's a scientific study that studies one variable in relation to hypertrophy. Nowhere does anyone say this one variable is the only means to build muscle or for anyone to realistically do 52 sets a week pushing the muscle. About the only thing I got out of it was volume can be a variable you can manipulate to apply progressive overload. Why Lyle and some others interpreted as Schoenfeld saying people should do 52 sets a week or that volume is the only variable for hypertrophy is beyond me. Lyle just seems to irrationally dislike a certain segment of evidence based practitioners for reasons I can't fathom. All the times I've listened to Schoenfeld, he rarely speaks in absolutes and discusses these topics like a scientist assessing one variable in the hypertrophy space. Whenever he tests this variable, Lyle has a fit about it for reasons I can't fathom.
@steve recently I believe you said you were rethinking set/rep schemes. IIRC you said that you were thinking that having straight sets with set reps, such as 3x8 with an RIR that trends down across sets as fatigue sets in may not be a bad thing as long as the average RIR is taken into account. Would you explore that a bit more? Alot of my programming has decreasing reps so that I can maintain roughly the same RIR across all sets so it could look like 3x11,9,6 at RIR2 across the board vs 3x8 at RIR 3,2,1 for each set. Thoughts?
Awesome. Awesome study and awesome breakdown by Martin. I love how he's not using the study to dictate what training should be. It's just giving insight into what is a likely outcome.
I’ve posted my frustration in the past following evidence based recommendations. I feel that interpretations of studies has been bad at best in the past. HOWEVER, I see things are getting better and I really appreciate that. Good job Steve! The coaching and recommendations seem to be more on point these days as well as consideration for individual differences. I’m glad we aren’t debating absolutes like “train to failure always” or “never train to failure”.
The way this study was conducted should be a model for future research, so many the studies being so far away from real training really makes it’s relevance to real training so much less. Also having training footage is huge.
Second real banger episode in a row.
You should put the graphs/figures on the screen for those watching here on UA-cam. Would make it way easier to understand
I appreciate that, in the meantime it's an open access paper & you can easily have another browser open with the graphs. - Steve
Bring Lyle and Mike to argue over this
Lyle versus Brad face to face would be awesome. Maybe Milo versus Lyle. Steve could introduce it like a UFC competition, "Let's get it on." then let them go.
The real reason nobody will debate Lyle is because he is correct 👀
@@serpentking8503Or because he's a little bit psycho?
@@serpentking8503 Correct about what? If you actually listen to Brad, he never tells people to do 52 sets. He just did a high volume study to continue to show that volume and hypertrophy have a strong relationship. Nowhere does Schoenfeld or any of the others in that study say to do 52 sets a week or to not apply progressive overload. It's a scientific study that studies one variable in relation to hypertrophy. Nowhere does anyone say this one variable is the only means to build muscle or for anyone to realistically do 52 sets a week pushing the muscle. About the only thing I got out of it was volume can be a variable you can manipulate to apply progressive overload. Why Lyle and some others interpreted as Schoenfeld saying people should do 52 sets a week or that volume is the only variable for hypertrophy is beyond me. Lyle just seems to irrationally dislike a certain segment of evidence based practitioners for reasons I can't fathom. All the times I've listened to Schoenfeld, he rarely speaks in absolutes and discusses these topics like a scientist assessing one variable in the hypertrophy space. Whenever he tests this variable, Lyle has a fit about it for reasons I can't fathom.
@steve recently I believe you said you were rethinking set/rep schemes. IIRC you said that you were thinking that having straight sets with set reps, such as 3x8 with an RIR that trends down across sets as fatigue sets in may not be a bad thing as long as the average RIR is taken into account.
Would you explore that a bit more? Alot of my programming has decreasing reps so that I can maintain roughly the same RIR across all sets so it could look like 3x11,9,6 at RIR2 across the board vs 3x8 at RIR 3,2,1 for each set. Thoughts?
❤❤❤
All hail Bayes
1 hour and 45 mins of talking and no application, or difference explained between rir and training to failure?? 🤷🏻♂️
When I learned how to properly train to failure, my gains have been better than when I used steroids in my younger years. Thanks to Mentzer and Yates.
Yeah sure 😂
@@user-pz6hs6wi6fnot true. It was water weight. Which is counted as lean body mass. They do not gain much actual tissue.