I love Mike's style of debating people. Instead of making statements, he asks questions until they are cornered. Having said that, he stood up well to the questioning and even got Mike to the point of not having anymore questions. Great debate by both! I still love banded hack squats. Feel much better on the knees and also get me much more sore.
I knew this was more complex then I fully understood but didn’t know just how much more complex it was. Great productive conversation here. Fascinating stuff !
I think Dr Mike went really hard on Kassem (which is good) but I’ve got to say I think he responded to that about as well as anyone could. I came out of this not necessarily thinking reverse bands are better, or even as good, for hypertrophy, but at least respecting that they may have some decent use-cases.
My experience with using bands in this manner or on any leg exercise is that it just made it so I used more weight. Never saw any benefit other then I could write down a heavier weight in my training log
And here's why people do it. Quarter reps, bands, bad technique, slow eccentric, all to write more weight in the log. Like that matters for anyone else.
Incredible discussion. Great informational and professional discourse to both Dr. Mike and Coach Kassem. (I’m only half way through the video at this point so I can’t speak to any depravities that occur later in the podcast :D). Thank you Steve for hosting the excellent discussion
I loved the discussion, but I would've wished for a depper insight in the different periodization approaches since they differ a lot and it would be amazing to hear them discuss about that since it's pretty impactful aswell.
First of all, big thanks for all these insightful debates. I am on Mikes side. Stretch under load / bottom part seems to provide the best SFR. So making the top end harder can take away from that. In other videos Mike has stated that doing the same exercise for a long time can decreas SFR. So its a good idea to switch up exercises from time to time, but stick to the exercises that provide the best SFR for the individual. So my question would be if doing banded hack squats for a while, after a longer period of normal hack squats could resensitise to the stetch under load componend when coming back to normal hack squats?
Yeah, probably that level of variation would be enough to avoid staleness to some degree. Even different hand positions in a pushup can be enough, and proper bands change half the lift pretty dramatically lol.
I found a way to band an assistant pullup machine, that makes it heaviest in the stretch,really awesome stimulus (Atleast how pumped and swole my lats feel) The weight stack comes down as you pull, opposite to pulldowns where weight stack goes up as you pull
I know what you mean but can't get my mind around setting it up. Can you share exactly how you set this up on a assisted pull-up machine. Appreciate ur time
So I connect one end of band to the weight stack on the loading pin,the other end of the band wraps around the top of the machine frame, Kinda like a bungee jump
@@Firm-Tofu-King No you didn’t. You did the opposite and I’m not sure how you didn’t feel it. If the band is anchored above and attached to the weight stack, it’s taking off more load as the weight stack goes down which is when you’re going down. As you pull up, the pulley is pulling the weight up… and the band is becoming slack. Believe me, I have thought I could do it too and no matter what you do, you’re only creating less load at the bottom and more at the top. Reversed or regular. Cams on machines are the only way to alter it to be heavier in the stretched position. TRX straps are the other option when set up well for it but loadability is the challenge.
11:06 if the shortened position fatigues first and lengthened positions cause more hypertrophy then surely banding it just means the shortened position fatigued even earlier and the lengthened range is even more inadequately stimulated
@@N1education Doesn’t stretch under load when done a lot induce a lot of fatigue or damage? So it would be nice to keep shortened position exercises for that?
Great podcast Steve. This format definitely leaves you with questions which is a good thing as it forces you to think more critically about a subject. Keep it up!
Remember that band tension causes acceleration but unlike mass resistance, band tension does not resist acceleration. That is why all masses fall at g. Bands can force a greater than g downward acceleration during a short period of reversal from eccentric to concentric that can raise peak force by reflexive activation. It also can conceivably raise activation faster than inhibitory stretch reflexes can inhibit force production. On the hack squat, set at 45 degrees the maximum downward acceleration of the mass is already reduced to about .7 g (g sin 45). This is already going to produce a downward acceleration that is lower than normal physiological experiences and so is less likely to create an increased force production in the "range of reversal". Reverse bands reduce the downward acceleration even MORE since they reduce downward force at a given mass (mass being the resistance to acceleration). So the load has a higher resistance to acceleration for a given downward force. In theory for example, you could have 1000 pounds on a hack squat that is offset by the bands, but the high mass will still be slow to reverse and accelerate. My conjecture on hypertrophy stimulation in the stretch range is that it is primarily the result of supramaximal force development in the range of reversal (greater than voluntary maximal non-reflexively activated concentric force capability). A lifter who can voluntarily move 300 pounds at a virtually non-accelerating rate will likely generate upwards of 330-360 pounds of force when reversing a weight that has a natural downward acceleration of g, and that high reversal force may last for perhaps around a second, and will tend to occur in the lower 1/3 of the ROM both on the way down and on the way back up. It could very well be that controlled ballistic reversals applied in the midrange or even higher might elicit supramaximal force production that develops faster than inhibitory reflexes can shut it down, but experiments with partial reps rarely use controlled ballistic reversals at the lowest point of the partial repetition. Also, by the nature of repetitions and range of motion, the natural range of reversal will tend to be in the lowest 1/3 of the rep, and the amount of stretch will facilitate higher momentary force. By applying positive band tension to a hack squat or leg press, we can avoid the affects of the machine that reduce downward acceleration of the load to a fraction of g, in other words we can achieve a downward acceleration of g or greater by using bands to force an "over-g" downward acceleration. This can allow developmentally productive tension that will peak before inhibitory reflexes can shit it down. It also may be that on squat, hack squats and leg presses, that the supramaximal "hold" occurring at the top position can raise the state of activation that will be applied at the range of reversal. Supramaximal holds and walk outs have been shown to raise activation on sets that follow in short order.
Excellent podcast Steve! We would like to see more dialog with Kass, Doug, and Dr. Mike. One thing to ask Dr. Mike is why he wasn't as critical of machines that have tension varying lever. As a matter of fact, I think he has a ham machine that has this lever.
If it is the case that more stretched ranges of motion provide better hypertrophy, then we should probably choose exercises and form that loads that range of motion optimally. Every exercise has somewhat arbitrary resistance/strength curve, and it is feasible that by modulating that you can provide better stimulus. Still, we do not know what is optimal in terms of fatigue, what % of that range of motion we should load and by how much. This discussion is relevant in terms of future research and can be very applicable for hypertrophy training in practice.
Not always because there can still be benefit in the concentric. Keep in mind that the amount of damage or muscle fatigue you can get from always doing eccentric focus or stretch under tension can build up a lot
I feel like a lot of these discussions come down to splitting hairs. Will altering the resistance curve further from even on an exercise really make you any noticeably bigger? Some other guy commenting on his assisted banded pullup might get a better SFR, and if there's no other exercise quite like that, more power to him, but how much more stimulus is it compared to normal shit? Obviously it's good for science's sake, and might have special utility in strength-specific training, but for hypertrophy, I don't think I've ever seen a bodybuilder go "man I gotta attribute my huge quads to the banded pendulum squat."
There's something to say for just putting in 20 years of hard lifting, refusing to elaborate, and leaving jacked. That said, the splitting hairs is really fun imo, and if it makes you like 2% more jacked and 5% less likely to tear a hammy or whatever, all the better.
@@jonjones5092 I agree man. And I agree with OPs comment too. Whine I love debates like this and will never ever stop wanting to learn more about these things, it’s heavily nuanced. And that’s maybe the only issue I have with the evidence based crew, I think sometimes they get so caught up in these topics that they forget the bigger picture, or rather don’t emphasize the bigger pic enough. As you said, 10-20 years of hard work, consistency and focusing mostly on the basics will get anyone as jacked as they can potentially minus the last couple lbs or so of muscle
It is because of people spending so much time splitting hairs that you have all the information at your disposal. You keep splitting hairs until it’s not considered hair splitting.
I think we should be careful with this mindset. We can move the needle in the direction of making things 5% more efficient. It's too easy to write it all off and say stuff like "well Ronnie Coleman didn't need that". The worst case scenario is it leads to the same results. I feel like some in this space underestimate the impact of exercise selection, resistance profile, intent and execution, and overestimate things like counting sets per bodypart per week as the main variable in a program.
Kassem did state a study that one could conclude that it is reasonable to assume it is the first 25% of the ROM that promotes hypertrophy. But there is not enough research yet. Perhaps we'll find out that it is the first 40% or 50% of the ROM. Regular banded partials to say 60% of the ROM may be in the way to go in the future. Also, some of the resistance curve finger waving against bands is over done. On almost all movements the stretched muscle or early phase you are under severe mechanical disadvantage and the muscle is very challenged at a lesser load anyway. As you move through the movement going to mechanical advantage the band properly continues to load the muscle. But yes after a certain ROM point you are working the late phase contracted muscle too much but it depends on the movement frankly. In Kass's video his mechanical advantage on the hack squat easily out paced the band's added resistance so the late phase didn't sap him of energy as much as we might think. Again, why not just do banded partials to 50% to 60% of the ROM that would be the ideal way to worked the stretched muscle phase perhaps.
I'm a little amazed and how often Mr. Kassem speaks about "how it feels" in this video. Nevertheless I respect him for many other thinks he has done. On this topic of banded Hack squat however, I support Mr. Mikes position.
This was a really good discussion. Two great minds sharing their thoughts. I would love to see a discussion about the ampk thing/metabolic training and the inteference effect on hypertrophy between kassem, israetel and perhaps ben house or someone else that has a thorough understanding of the mechanisms but also has some practical experience. Maybe andy galpin could be a good addition there too. What do you think?
It’s a fair point. For most people the over-complication of having to find an appropriate load and band to get the resistance profile you want isn’t worth it. Personally, I’m always paranoid the band is going to break! - Harry
This is kinda silly, doesn’t boil down to what feels better? How much band tension? Is it dependent on the load being used? Or just what feels best? How come a track cyclist or speed skater have such massive quads? THat being said if slapping bands on a leg machine gets you to train legs than have at it!
It’s quite simple actually…. Use no band and less weight, slight pause at the bottom where the quads are nice and stretched. And your quads will grow 😊💪🏽.
Why not band instead of reverse band? The logic of keeping the hardest part hardest and making the easier parts harder makes more sense to me than making the hardest part easier.
@@jamesdashper1316 It is not the same, because band resistance is not linear as it stretches. In reverse band, it's maximally stretched when you are at the bottom, meaning if you move 1 inch , there is a substantial change load. When you are at the top, if you move 1 inch, there is not as much change in load. It is the exact opposite if you regular band it. In other words, reverse band changes the resistance profile the most at the bottom, which is what Kas is advocating for. Regular banding would change the bottom resistance profile very little, it would mainly be at the top, which is not what he is advocating for.
@@jamesdashper1316 perhaps, I am simply providing Kas's reasoning for using a reverse band. I thought they were equivalent too, until he explained the difference on another podcast.
It effectively makes it lighter at the bottom position, the headrest part of the movement where you’re the weakest, and heavier in the top position, the easier part of the move where you’re the strongest. It’s an attempt to smooth out the resistance profile in the movement.
When I did banded Hacks for the first time, my quads got more sore than they ever have been. Dr Mike is getting lost in theory too much imo, sometimes things just work better for people.
I think Dr Mike is a little bit attached to hack squats in a dogmatic way, because he’s been doing them for so long he doesn’t like the thought that their could’ve been a better way to do them. The logic for reverse bands is sound if you acknowledge that some muscle fibers are only worked in the top of the ROM. The bottom of the ROM is so hard that you fail before you can challenge the top, therefore reverse make sense for this exercise.
But if you don’t fail in the bottom due to band, is challenging the short more hypertrophic than just failing normally in the bottom/lengthened? Probably just adding more fatigue from overloading the short with likely less or no benefit hypertrophy wise
You missed the main point of my comment. There is evidence that certain fibers only get hit at certain points n the ROM of any exercise. Since the strength curve on a hack is so wonky, you fail at the bottom before you’ve accumulated any real fatigue at the top, therefore the top half becomes junk volume and you miss out on hitting those fibers.
@@LucasSilva-jc3tb When I post as link youtube deletes my comment. Look up regional hypertrophy, it's a newly understood phenomena where different exercises bias growth of fibers more distally or proximally based on the strength curve of the exercise and other factors. This also coincides with what we know about joint angle specificity for strength as well as all the old data on full ROM being the best for hypertrophy. The best data driven assumption is that the missing out on part of the ROM is not good.
I'd rather use more volume with sets or reps than a band. Mike is on point. If you can't push 300. But add more weight to band it to find a sweet spot. Bwahaha. When you can add another rep to find a sweet spot. Bruh. If you can move up weight then move up. If you can't. Use more sets or reps. So easy. Kassem was back peddling and stumbling the whole time.
Feel like Mike was being unnecessarily stubborn here. Kas is basically like - all useful tools in a toolbox people can use if they wish Mike just came across very resistant for the sake of it (pun absolutely intended)
Why would you use a worse tool if you had a better tool? If you are going to preach doing something, over something else, you should have good reasons for it.
@@mikkeljrgensen181 he wasn’t preaching that’s the point. Just acknowledging why some could use it if they choose. Not everything has to be ‘optimal’ people can do things cos they like too… And why not when research is still yet to give a definitive answer
His stubbornness makes the debates more insightful and entertaining. If he just agreed with everything Kas said we would not get the devils advocate resistance to each opinion and why each opinion is supported through empirical and anecdotal application.
@@yiannisschmalz6574 Well if Kas and Mike always agree then there would be no debate or ways to learn from others perspectives. Neither of them are wrong at least not of what we know but they just have their own ways of thinking
Mike 'debating' kassem gives the false impression to the lay person that they have equivalent expertise in their fields. I'm not sure why he bothers with this nincompoop. Just like Jeff nippard having a bachelors of science doesn't make them an expert on anything. He got every internet license imaginable to appear competent. Guys, he's a personal trainer who uses big words. That's all. Right? Right? Right? When someone ends 500 statements with Right? In a debate they're admitting insecurity and defeat. He's not qualified to debate Dr Mike. Right?
I love Mike's style of debating people. Instead of making statements, he asks questions until they are cornered. Having said that, he stood up well to the questioning and even got Mike to the point of not having anymore questions. Great debate by both! I still love banded hack squats. Feel much better on the knees and also get me much more sore.
Success against Mike in a debate is not soiling oneself.
@@GVS I would not be successful
I got MUCH more sore from them as well! They clearly have application for a lot of people
u guys only support mike cause he look more manly than coach kassem lol
Thanks for tuning in :)
I knew this was more complex then I fully understood but didn’t know just how much more complex it was.
Great productive conversation here.
Fascinating stuff !
Thanks for listening!
- Pascal
Dude, you're *KILLING IT* with these guests.
Thanks for tuning in!
- Pascal
I think Dr Mike went really hard on Kassem (which is good) but I’ve got to say I think he responded to that about as well as anyone could. I came out of this not necessarily thinking reverse bands are better, or even as good, for hypertrophy, but at least respecting that they may have some decent use-cases.
I felt pretty much the same. - Steve
My experience with using bands in this manner or on any leg exercise is that it just made it so I used more weight. Never saw any benefit other then I could write down a heavier weight in my training log
True :D
- Pascal
And here's why people do it. Quarter reps, bands, bad technique, slow eccentric, all to write more weight in the log. Like that matters for anyone else.
Incredible discussion. Great informational and professional discourse to both Dr. Mike and Coach Kassem. (I’m only half way through the video at this point so I can’t speak to any depravities that occur later in the podcast :D). Thank you Steve for hosting the excellent discussion
Thanks for listening :)
- Pascal
I loved the discussion, but I would've wished for a depper insight in the different periodization approaches since they differ a lot and it would be amazing to hear them discuss about that since it's pretty impactful aswell.
I'd love to hear that as well.
Good point, they will come on again and perhaps we have time to cover it.
- Pascal
First of all, big thanks for all these insightful debates.
I am on Mikes side. Stretch under load / bottom part seems to provide the best SFR. So making the top end harder can take away from that.
In other videos Mike has stated that doing the same exercise for a long time can decreas SFR. So its a good idea to switch up exercises from time to time, but stick to the exercises that provide the best SFR for the individual.
So my question would be if doing banded hack squats for a while, after a longer period of normal hack squats could resensitise to the stetch under load componend when coming back to normal hack squats?
Yeah, probably that level of variation would be enough to avoid staleness to some degree. Even different hand positions in a pushup can be enough, and proper bands change half the lift pretty dramatically lol.
Thanks goes out to you for listening!
- Pascal
I found a way to band an assistant pullup machine, that makes it heaviest in the stretch,really awesome stimulus
(Atleast how pumped and swole my lats feel)
The weight stack comes down as you pull, opposite to pulldowns where weight stack goes up as you pull
I know what you mean but can't get my mind around setting it up. Can you share exactly how you set this up on a assisted pull-up machine. Appreciate ur time
So I connect one end of band to the weight stack on the loading pin,the other end of the band wraps around the top of the machine frame,
Kinda like a bungee jump
Would be amazing to have a machine that matches that
- Pascal
@@Firm-Tofu-King No you didn’t. You did the opposite and I’m not sure how you didn’t feel it. If the band is anchored above and attached to the weight stack, it’s taking off more load as the weight stack goes down which is when you’re going down. As you pull up, the pulley is pulling the weight up… and the band is becoming slack. Believe me, I have thought I could do it too and no matter what you do, you’re only creating less load at the bottom and more at the top. Reversed or regular. Cams on machines are the only way to alter it to be heavier in the stretched position. TRX straps are the other option when set up well for it but loadability is the challenge.
@@Mikeyt2000 I'm going down as the stack goes up
Kas is clearly the only one who actually understands bands. Both theoretically and practically
11:06 if the shortened position fatigues first and lengthened positions cause more hypertrophy then surely banding it just means the shortened position fatigued even earlier and the lengthened range is even more inadequately stimulated
Keep in mind that the context of this is force capacity, not stimulus and is across all exercises to varying degrees.
There you go, Kassem to the rescue
@@N1education Doesn’t stretch under load when done a lot induce a lot of fatigue or damage? So it would be nice to keep shortened position exercises for that?
Great podcast Steve. This format definitely leaves you with questions which is a good thing as it forces you to think more critically about a subject. Keep it up!
Thanks as always :)
- Pascal
Remember that band tension causes acceleration but unlike mass resistance, band tension does not resist acceleration. That is why all masses fall at g. Bands can force a greater than g downward acceleration during a short period of reversal from eccentric to concentric that can raise peak force by reflexive activation. It also can conceivably raise activation faster than inhibitory stretch reflexes can inhibit force production.
On the hack squat, set at 45 degrees the maximum downward acceleration of the mass is already reduced to about .7 g (g sin 45). This is already going to produce a downward acceleration that is lower than normal physiological experiences and so is less likely to create an increased force production in the "range of reversal". Reverse bands reduce the downward acceleration even MORE since they reduce downward force at a given mass (mass being the resistance to acceleration). So the load has a higher resistance to acceleration for a given downward force. In theory for example, you could have 1000 pounds on a hack squat that is offset by the bands, but the high mass will still be slow to reverse and accelerate.
My conjecture on hypertrophy stimulation in the stretch range is that it is primarily the result of supramaximal force development in the range of reversal (greater than voluntary maximal non-reflexively activated concentric force capability). A lifter who can voluntarily move 300 pounds at a virtually non-accelerating rate will likely generate upwards of 330-360 pounds of force when reversing a weight that has a natural downward acceleration of g, and that high reversal force may last for perhaps around a second, and will tend to occur in the lower 1/3 of the ROM both on the way down and on the way back up. It could very well be that controlled ballistic reversals applied in the midrange or even higher might elicit supramaximal force production that develops faster than inhibitory reflexes can shut it down, but experiments with partial reps rarely use controlled ballistic reversals at the lowest point of the partial repetition. Also, by the nature of repetitions and range of motion, the natural range of reversal will tend to be in the lowest 1/3 of the rep, and the amount of stretch will facilitate higher momentary force.
By applying positive band tension to a hack squat or leg press, we can avoid the affects of the machine that reduce downward acceleration of the load to a fraction of g, in other words we can achieve a downward acceleration of g or greater by using bands to force an "over-g" downward acceleration. This can allow developmentally productive tension that will peak before inhibitory reflexes can shit it down. It also may be that on squat, hack squats and leg presses, that the supramaximal "hold" occurring at the top position can raise the state of activation that will be applied at the range of reversal. Supramaximal holds and walk outs have been shown to raise activation on sets that follow in short order.
Excellent podcast Steve! We would like to see more dialog with Kass, Doug, and Dr. Mike.
One thing to ask Dr. Mike is why he wasn't as critical of machines that have tension varying lever. As a matter of fact, I think he has a ham machine that has this lever.
More to come :)
- Pascal
I long for a line of questioning this strigent for Joel Seedman.
Oh boy^^
If it is the case that more stretched ranges of motion provide better hypertrophy, then we should probably choose exercises and form that loads that range of motion optimally. Every exercise has somewhat arbitrary resistance/strength curve, and it is feasible that by modulating that you can provide better stimulus. Still, we do not know what is optimal in terms of fatigue, what % of that range of motion we should load and by how much. This discussion is relevant in terms of future research and can be very applicable for hypertrophy training in practice.
Thanks for listening
Not always because there can still be benefit in the concentric. Keep in mind that the amount of damage or muscle fatigue you can get from always doing eccentric focus or stretch under tension can build up a lot
Dr. Mike is correct the load on the eccentric and concentric is a greater through 75% of the lift.
Which adds more fatigue right?
I feel like a lot of these discussions come down to splitting hairs. Will altering the resistance curve further from even on an exercise really make you any noticeably bigger? Some other guy commenting on his assisted banded pullup might get a better SFR, and if there's no other exercise quite like that, more power to him, but how much more stimulus is it compared to normal shit? Obviously it's good for science's sake, and might have special utility in strength-specific training, but for hypertrophy, I don't think I've ever seen a bodybuilder go "man I gotta attribute my huge quads to the banded pendulum squat."
There's something to say for just putting in 20 years of hard lifting, refusing to elaborate, and leaving jacked.
That said, the splitting hairs is really fun imo, and if it makes you like 2% more jacked and 5% less likely to tear a hammy or whatever, all the better.
@@jonjones5092 I agree man. And I agree with OPs comment too. Whine I love debates like this and will never ever stop wanting to learn more about these things, it’s heavily nuanced. And that’s maybe the only issue I have with the evidence based crew, I think sometimes they get so caught up in these topics that they forget the bigger picture, or rather don’t emphasize the bigger pic enough.
As you said, 10-20 years of hard work, consistency and focusing mostly on the basics will get anyone as jacked as they can potentially minus the last couple lbs or so of muscle
It is because of people spending so much time splitting hairs that you have all the information at your disposal. You keep splitting hairs until it’s not considered hair splitting.
I think we should be careful with this mindset. We can move the needle in the direction of making things 5% more efficient. It's too easy to write it all off and say stuff like "well Ronnie Coleman didn't need that". The worst case scenario is it leads to the same results. I feel like some in this space underestimate the impact of exercise selection, resistance profile, intent and execution, and overestimate things like counting sets per bodypart per week as the main variable in a program.
As long as it doesn't make people train like wussies, I guess there's nothing wrong with that.
- Pascal
Kassem did state a study that one could conclude that it is reasonable to assume it is the first 25% of the ROM that promotes hypertrophy. But there is not enough research yet. Perhaps we'll find out that it is the first 40% or 50% of the ROM. Regular banded partials to say 60% of the ROM may be in the way to go in the future. Also, some of the resistance curve finger waving against bands is over done. On almost all movements the stretched muscle or early phase you are under severe mechanical disadvantage and the muscle is very challenged at a lesser load anyway. As you move through the movement going to mechanical advantage the band properly continues to load the muscle. But yes after a certain ROM point you are working the late phase contracted muscle too much but it depends on the movement frankly. In Kass's video his mechanical advantage on the hack squat easily out paced the band's added resistance so the late phase didn't sap him of energy as much as we might think. Again, why not just do banded partials to 50% to 60% of the ROM that would be the ideal way to worked the stretched muscle phase perhaps.
Thanks for tuning in
I personally recently love floor press against bands to work on bench lockout in powerlifting. However thats pretty powerlifting specific.
I can see that. Thanks for listening
- Pascal
thank you for this episode! really informative!
Thanks to you for listening
- Pascal
I'm a little amazed and how often Mr. Kassem speaks about "how it feels" in this video. Nevertheless I respect him for many other thinks he has done. On this topic of banded Hack squat however, I support Mr. Mikes position.
Thanks for tuning in!
- Pascal
Going to have to listen to this again
It'll be there for as long as we're around :)
- Pascal
The 2 beasts of the fitness industry
Thanks :)
God, I hope so, I’m at the gym doing banded chest presses and band pull aparts atm so I can’t listen now.. I just hope haha
Joe Bennett us a good video series on banding chest exercises to would recommend
Lol, hehe
Great content, Steve!
Thanks!
- Pascal
This was a really good discussion. Two great minds sharing their thoughts.
I would love to see a discussion about the ampk thing/metabolic training and the inteference effect on hypertrophy between kassem, israetel and perhaps ben house or someone else that has a thorough understanding of the mechanisms but also has some practical experience. Maybe andy galpin could be a good addition there too.
What do you think?
Thanks for your suggestion! We’ll see what we can do!
- Harry
Very nice episode ! Good info
Glad you enjoyed it!
- Pascal
Great discussion ! Thank you
Glad you enjoyed it!
- Pascal
Does a free t bar row have a better resistence Profil than a barbell or dumbell row?
That would depend on your torso angle and grip width/orientation but it could do.
- Harry
What if you started the set doing partials of the bottom for hack squat then when fatigued switch to full range?
That'd make it very hard to keep track of progress
- Pascal
reverse bands make hack squats work how they should have been designed in the first place.
It’s a fair point. For most people the over-complication of having to find an appropriate load and band to get the resistance profile you want isn’t worth it.
Personally, I’m always paranoid the band is going to break!
- Harry
I would like to see the little bits at the end that were edited out 😁
I bet! Secret gossip ;P
- Pascal
This is kinda silly, doesn’t boil down to what feels better? How much band tension? Is it dependent on the load being used? Or just what feels best? How come a track cyclist or speed skater have such massive quads? THat being said if slapping bands on a leg machine gets you to train legs than have at it!
Reasonable take for sure
- Pascal
It’s quite simple actually…. Use no band and less weight, slight pause at the bottom where the quads are nice and stretched. And your quads will grow 😊💪🏽.
Yeah you clearly didn’t watch the video
You got a point :)
- Pascal
Why not band instead of reverse band? The logic of keeping the hardest part hardest and making the easier parts harder makes more sense to me than making the hardest part easier.
It does the same thing you would just have different loads in plates in each scenario
@@jamesdashper1316 It is not the same, because band resistance is not linear as it stretches. In reverse band, it's maximally stretched when you are at the bottom, meaning if you move 1 inch , there is a substantial change load. When you are at the top, if you move 1 inch, there is not as much change in load. It is the exact opposite if you regular band it. In other words, reverse band changes the resistance profile the most at the bottom, which is what Kas is advocating for. Regular banding would change the bottom resistance profile very little, it would mainly be at the top, which is not what he is advocating for.
@@greenwbify the difference is so minute that it’s pretty much negligible
@@jamesdashper1316 perhaps, I am simply providing Kas's reasoning for using a reverse band. I thought they were equivalent too, until he explained the difference on another podcast.
Thanks for listening guys
idk why but coach kassem opinion is always sound more related/none foreign than mike isratel lol
Thanks for listening!
I'm forced to go back to bands and light weights after I hurt my shoulder getting up off the floor one night when I was drunk. It SUCKS!
Such a poor SFR on vodka smh…
I'm sorry to hear that
@@ReviveStronger it's alright
Thank you for your great content
I still have no idea what kasseem is talking about or why he thinks bands Are better for hack squats, someone simplify it for me?
It effectively makes it lighter at the bottom position, the headrest part of the movement where you’re the weakest, and heavier in the top position, the easier part of the move where you’re the strongest. It’s an attempt to smooth out the resistance profile in the movement.
I just want to hack squat...that's all :')
- Pascal
When I did banded Hacks for the first time, my quads got more sore than they ever have been. Dr Mike is getting lost in theory too much imo, sometimes things just work better for people.
If it works for you that's great!
- Pascal
It got more sore because it’s a different variation you haven’t done yet. And soreness doesn’t always mean muscle growth but if you like it go for it
I think Dr Mike is a little bit attached to hack squats in a dogmatic way, because he’s been doing them for so long he doesn’t like the thought that their could’ve been a better way to do them. The logic for reverse bands is sound if you acknowledge that some muscle fibers are only worked in the top of the ROM. The bottom of the ROM is so hard that you fail before you can challenge the top, therefore reverse make sense for this exercise.
But if you don’t fail in the bottom due to band, is challenging the short more hypertrophic than just failing normally in the bottom/lengthened?
Probably just adding more fatigue from overloading the short with likely less or no benefit hypertrophy wise
You missed the main point of my comment. There is evidence that certain fibers only get hit at certain points n the ROM of any exercise. Since the strength curve on a hack is so wonky, you fail at the bottom before you’ve accumulated any real fatigue at the top, therefore the top half becomes junk volume and you miss out on hitting those fibers.
@@oblivionpro69 can you link the articles where that is the case for the quads? As in the quads needing that upper rom for hypertrophy
@@LucasSilva-jc3tb When I post as link youtube deletes my comment. Look up regional hypertrophy, it's a newly understood phenomena where different exercises bias growth of fibers more distally or proximally based on the strength curve of the exercise and other factors. This also coincides with what we know about joint angle specificity for strength as well as all the old data on full ROM being the best for hypertrophy. The best data driven assumption is that the missing out on part of the ROM is not good.
Thanks for tuning in!
I watched the hole thing.....im a nerd
Way to go!
- Pascal
nice
Thanks!
- Pascal
letsss goooo
Yeeeeah buddy
I'd rather use more volume with sets or reps than a band. Mike is on point. If you can't push 300. But add more weight to band it to find a sweet spot. Bwahaha. When you can add another rep to find a sweet spot. Bruh. If you can move up weight then move up. If you can't. Use more sets or reps. So easy.
Kassem was back peddling and stumbling the whole time.
Did you watch the video? It doesn’t seem like you understand the points they were making
I myself am not a big fan of banded training either.
- Pascal
Feel like Mike was being unnecessarily stubborn here.
Kas is basically like - all useful tools in a toolbox people can use if they wish
Mike just came across very resistant for the sake of it (pun absolutely intended)
Why would you use a worse tool if you had a better tool? If you are going to preach doing something, over something else, you should have good reasons for it.
Thanks for listening!
@@mikkeljrgensen181 he wasn’t preaching that’s the point. Just acknowledging why some could use it if they choose.
Not everything has to be ‘optimal’ people can do things cos they like too…
And why not when research is still yet to give a definitive answer
His stubbornness makes the debates more insightful and entertaining. If he just agreed with everything Kas said we would not get the devils advocate resistance to each opinion and why each opinion is supported through empirical and anecdotal application.
@@yiannisschmalz6574 Well if Kas and Mike always agree then there would be no debate or ways to learn from others perspectives. Neither of them are wrong at least not of what we know but they just have their own ways of thinking
I don't know, man. IF, and it's a massive IF, the band adds some amount of advantage, it's marginal at best and surely not worth the time it takes.
How did you possibly comment on a post 8 days ago that was released today?! Wizardry?
@@JoeAnklam I think Revive has the option to join a membership and get early access among other benefits
@@JoeAnklam Join the member site! Worth every bloody penny.
@@JoeAnklam confirmed hogwarts student
agreed
I'm sooo frustrated. Partly just because I'm not on any sleep but also because of all this fuckery. OMG so much words
Thanks for listening!
Kass's point is not convincing. However Mike seems like rejects the idea all together.
Mike is actually pretty open about new ideas so I don't think he's rejecting it because he doesn't know better.
- Pascal
@@ReviveStronger Based on the video, no he's not.
Mike 'debating' kassem gives the false impression to the lay person that they have equivalent expertise in their fields. I'm not sure why he bothers with this nincompoop. Just like Jeff nippard having a bachelors of science doesn't make them an expert on anything. He got every internet license imaginable to appear competent. Guys, he's a personal trainer who uses big words. That's all. Right? Right? Right? When someone ends 500 statements with Right? In a debate they're admitting insecurity and defeat. He's not qualified to debate Dr Mike. Right?
Cooach Kassem lol. The only thing bigger than his ego is his gut.
Still thanks for listening