@@EnkiriElite yea I usually give people the benefit of the doubt but he's reeeeally sus, just such a weird example to choose especially given that he's actually pretty strong
His delts give it away. I honestly don’t think anyone can grow quads like that naturally. I would love for someone to prove me wrong about that. But we’ll never know if someone is genuinely natural. And unlike Geoffrey, I don’t give people the benefit of the doubt. Especially, in this day and age. Mike is definitely losing my respect. It’s sad. Because I thought he knew what he was talking about. Having a PhD is a big deal. But if you can’t even use your brain to realize that Doug might not be natural, then that’s kind of sad.
Loved your analogy that while we’re all rectangles, enhanced lifters (squares) can bend or apply different rules to their training that us natty’s (rectangles) can’t. Very true statement, & that’s why it’s a very bad practice for PED users to push or promote their practices on the natty population, as it can be especially harmful to the beginners who don’t know any better. 💪
Yeah, I think that was my primary point of contention with Dr. Mike here, as he really wanted to eliminate the concept of there needing to be differences between the training styles....and while he's right that there don't *need* to be differences...there just are because for whatever reason enhanced bodybuilders have decided to train in a particular, sub-optimal way. I think Mike has some pretty glaring biases that present themselves anytime he discussing PED usage. Just something I've noticed over time. Glad you enjoyed the video man.
@@EnkiriElite I forget where I heard it but I think due to the PED usage the muscles in enhanced bodybuilders grow so large and develop faster than the ligaments and tendons that they end up snapping their shit up more so the pump style work was slowly adapted to mitigate the risk.
@@UnprofessionalAthlete You basically heard right, as it’s been found that PED users have a much higher risk of tendon ruptures. Though none of the research to date is completely conclusive, the findings point to that tendons & ligaments (connective tissue) cannot get stronger remotely as fast as the muscles can when someone is using PEDs, and it can also cause them to become a bit more rigid & less elastic over time. That’s one of the biggest reasons why PED users tend to have a much higher rate of tearing their tendons/ligaments than their natty counterparts.
As someone who spent 12+ years on metabolite-pump-and-fluff bro work in the gym, I can only agree. You can grow a pretty good amount of muscle mass doing only this, but you are definitely capped by the low-ish intensity. Plus, you might end up ridden with mobility and joint issues if you do not devote sufficient time truly mastering the complex, compound barbell movement and only rely on machines or single-joint exercises. I was like this after spending a decade on leg presses, leg extensions and machine stuff.
@@keeran9306 Neither specifically. I mean hopping from exercice to exercice, without planning any long-term progression, and devoting the bulk of my time and energy to single-joint exercices, machines, and assisted movements. You may feel like you train to failure this way (a long or heavy set on a leg press if definitely painful), or may be unable to do a lot of reps; but you are still going nowhere on the long run. You just become pretty good at the leg press specifically, and add a little bit of mass to your quads. That is about it, even after a decade of religiously working 5 days a week on machines. There is a world of difference between this and, say, devoting six months to learn to squat properly, and becoming a strong and regular squatter - in terms of strength, size, mobility, joint health and day-to-day life in general.
I’m just so tired of the “where’s the research paper on that”, “if there isn’t a study on it then you can’t say it’s true”. People are telling us not to trust our own eyes but to trust some study where everyone is a stranger. No thanks. Great video Alec.
Research is overrated for resistance training due to key factors that can and does influence results. If we took research at face value then generally there’s no reason to lift lower than say 15 reps (exception is stuff like targeting triceps on bench they’re activated more under a heavy load) and you can leave 3 reps in the tank on every set
Lol that's why all of these "evidence based" content creators are a joke. They act all high and mighty because they know the research. Even though the vast majority of research is done on beginners and early intermediates who respond to basically anything they do in the gym. Hypertrophy and strength training are not hard sciences that can be cleanly measured.
@@Soccasteve Unpopular Mike’s advice isn’t even all that good no idea why he’s considered so great. His achievements aren’t that great either in terms of relative strength. Just another drug user with great genetics from what I see. His volume recommendations straight up suck
Natty’s have been getting bigger and stronger physically and argumentatively. Bad information or incomplete information gets called out no matter who it comes from and now we can refer to actual naturals like you. Great vid man.
The natural league, but enkiri, Alpha destiny, bald Omni Man, all these three guys are my favorite Much love from Brazil guys, my friends are learning English to watch your videos too
Anytime someone uses Doug Miller as a sample natty, I find it hard to listen to the rest of what they have to say. I do think Doc Mike does more good than harm in the industry.
He's a super smart guy which is why it's mind boggling that he actually thinks Doug is natty. Mike's general training advice about volume, pump, and progressing RIR over the weeks is pretty poor training advice in my experience.
I preach this and some people can't believe its really that easy, lots of people don't wanna bother tracking their sessions though and just wing it when they go into the gym
I remember hearing about Doug about a year ago. I don’t even know why I crack up every time I hear his nickname “Drug Miller”. It’s not a clever joke or even creative, but I still laugh whenever I hear it lmao
Very good square/rectangle analogy, it only matters though when people (beginners) are unknowingly wasting time with this, like you I personally don't really give a...and in the end enjoying the process of gym, getting fitter, trying hard hard, is what matters, we're not all aspiring utube milionaires, and I don't really give a...about them either
I feel I’ve gotten an impressive amount of natty leg and back size from almost exclusively low rep/ high intensity. 505 squat, 180 lb chin up for example. They did studies where leg size was near equal between tested power lifters (low reps) and untested bodybuilders (higher reps) I feel natties must get strong to get big. If you have good body part genetics or on roids I believe you can train however u want including fluff and pump. For example my chest has always been big and responds to anything. Therefore I don’t really train it as much as anything else. A natty won’t have good genetics for every body part tho lol. That’s a distinguishing factor of roid use, weak points are still strong. I didn’t look up the Doug Miller guy omg yea he seems saucier than an italian restaurant. I love mike but I think Mike hasnt trainer natty beginners in a long time. If he was benching 375 at 19 he had great genetics
I agree I was doing bro splits for the first few years and barely got any bigger or stronger Decided to focus on strength and started madcow 5x5 and added over 100lb to my squat and deads and gained weight while remaining on the same level of body fat Of course all of this on my beginner years after like 2 years the gains stopped being so linear
Gained weight same body fat? Yes. Also what happened to me and it’s so goddamn satisfying. Also dieting after is so much easier. You can eat a lot and still lose weight.
Like the video a lot. Getting stronger is not only logical but one of the driving factors why staying in the game long term has so much meaning and fun behind it. On the topic of metabolites and why tennis players and swimmers arent jacked to the Gilles I still have to say that this was not the best comparison. I believe mike as some valid points and that the cutoff point of efective rep ranges are at the 30 rep Mark's is logical to me. Somewhere there has to be a cutoff point and that is around that 30 rep mark, tennis players do thousands as you said. The sheer volume and novelty will as with all beginners give some gains but after the first stage there is no further factor in it anymore. Still doing a rather stretngh biased training program is in my opinion not only more fun but also more effective altough you can shift in both hypertrophie and strength a little bit when you are more advanced. See Geoffrey Schofield he is jacked and is not nearly as strong as he looks but also because of many factors bejond training
The first issue with the tennis player doesn't make sense because the pump metabolite work of 15-25 reps can still raise in intensity via weight on bar/dumbell. So it wouldn't hit the tennis player limit.
Highly agree with what you said. While it is true that light weights can build muscle, the weight has to be above 30% of 1 rep max. Anything below that is highly suboptimal. Most people ignore this to be train heavy and build up strength. No bodybuilder lifts pink baby weights. Yes, the weights may be light but not feathers. Everyone, natty or not will have build-up strength. The concept that you do not need to grow stronger to become bigger is wrong. Miss that white background, it looked very professional.
I have done isolation work not many times, but the times i have done it, it has done nothing, idk if im judging the work quality wrong, but they currently never give me doms. I.e. i have done curls after some compound work, so basically im very pumped when i started the curls. Did 3-4 sets of curls until failure, even some rest pauses if i recall correctly. I did this only 4 training in a row, and have done it in some ocassions just to give it another try. Outcome has been pretty bad, didn't have doms the next days. As i tell before, idk if im judging this well, but i was expecting some pain the days after because this was a new stimulus for me. By the other hand, i recently changed supinated pulls for neutral grip weighted pulls and THESE have trashed out my biceps recently, outcome has been surprisingly good. Same for other compound exercises, there is not a single weighted dips session that haven't got my pecs sore the next day or even starting to hurt late the same day. I do find "chasing the pump" has its place, for recovery purposes.
Isolation work is useful, but it has to be progressed just like your compound movements. Just pumping away will do very little to help your long term progress.
Theres so many ways to grow muscle. Thats why we should emphasize the importance of macro periodization, if properly done we can have the best of both worlds. In my athletes i like to put them in strenght phases specially when they are in caloroc surplus and some pump and high rep stuff (specially on isolation movements) specially in some caloric restriction diets. Srry for the english its not my maine languaje
I'm a tall guy. At 6'4" the 5x5 program basically made me stronger, slightly larger, and constantly exhausted my core and spine. Since switching to a 8-15 rep range, even based on your hip thrust recommendation, and doing things like pre exhausting my quads before squatting so I'm using less weight to save my back, I'm seeing gains on this long ass frame. I fear if I go the pure strength route, no disrespect to Zack Telander, that I'll be a super strong gangly guy like Zack Telander.
Whatever works for you man! I wasn't referring to using "pure" strength work in this video. I was really only distinguishing between using sets of 5-10 on compounds as "strength work" vs sets of 20+ as pump work.
I have a question about back extension set ups. You said you prefer the 45 degree one cause its better suited to the strength curve vs. the 90 degree one. I have an argument. Assuming you are deadlifting and do rdl. You get the least resistance at the top of the movement during lockout. At that point your hamstrings and many muscles are not as active. Now wouldn’t the 90 degree hyper be better to fill the gap as it will hit the muscles at that position as the muscles would be worked in the other positions during rdl and deadlift. Thank you if you get to this.
I think people need to really consider their own genetics and what they respond better to. Muscle fiber types can dictate whether you respond better to heavier work or lighter work for various muscle groups. Trial and error works the best. It’s fine to use someone else’s template to begin with but when you experiment on what works best for you you create a program that creates the best gains for you.
As one of the few real PED users I can safely say, the more PED's you take, the less working out matters. If someone takes more than 500mg, he can literally build more muscle by squeezing a shit out on a toilet than a natty can with a hard workout.. Also.. I guess it makes sense though.. I mean, look at Mike's head, GH abuse turned him into a demon
I guess you just increase volume thru pump, then deload, increase intensity in the same rep rangr and repeat. There will always be a heavier tennis racquet for a bodybuilder :)
The problem is that absent exogenous hormones...you do not continue to get stronger if all you are doing is pump/metabolite work in the 20+ rep range. You do for a short period of time, but then you hit an impenetrable wall and will not be able to improve performance in that reo range. So then what do you do?
@@andrewbuchwach2946 everyone seems to have forgotten the fact that the nervous system is a thing. Speaking with the bodybuilding community these Past few weeks has been quite illuminating actually. You joke about fahves....but if you are using 5s while following your rule about being "sufficiently close to failure" then you are training your nervous system. The same cannot be said of a weight you can do 20+ reps with. A natural trainee cannot leave their nervous system behind, so if you do nothing but 20 reps plus per set you will eventually become capped in terms of how much muscle you can build because you will have been ignoring the nervous system....the intensity of the stimulus is not potent enough to spur those neural adaptations, so the adaptations will be mostly mechanical. Do that long enough and you end up stagnant. And no,.switching to leg pressing or box squatting in the same 20+ rep range would not allevaviaye the stagnation I experienced during the 20 rep squats.. Justifying a lack of using moderately heavy work or higher by saying that "equivalent RIRs have the same effect" is literally ignoring the entire accumulation of strength training and weight training knowledge up to this point. So intensity has become obsolete, apparently. It's a very interesting notion.
@@EnkiriElite @Enkiri Elite Fitness if 20 rep squats work for legs, 20 rep benches will work for chest. Systemic fatigue mostly happens with axial loading, so just avoid those if you can. As for stalling in strength in the 20 rep range, deload and increase the weight a lil then work your volume up again until you're once again in the 20rep range with that lil bit more weight. It's like peaking for a 1rm but in a way that would make Louie Simmons disown you :) Horrible for long term absolute strength, but you maximise metabolite based gains for sure.
@@andrewbuchwach2946 if you are interested in learning some of the basic concepts regarding the role of and importance of the nervous system I would suggest reading this : www.t-nation.com/training/the-science-of-10-x-3/ As well as pretty much any other article written by Chad waterbury om the nervous system. This one though will give you an idea of why you can't eliminate the concept if you are hoping to maximize long term progress, and why force production relative to the individual's ceiling matters. Intensity cannot be substituted simply by adding more volume or going to failure. The effect on the body is not the same.
@@andrewbuchwach2946 if the body can produce 100 units of force and you only ever expose it to 30 units...and then suddenly you start exposing it to 80 units. You truly believe that the effect on the body would be the same? He literally says in the article that high force training preferentially recruits the type in fibers with the largest potential for growth.. I am honestly a bit flabbergasted at this point. I mean no offense because youve been polite, but I was truly unaware that there were lifters out there doubting the validity or necessity of these concepts at all. I really have nothing more to add, other than I would encourage to implement some of these concepts for yourself and see what happens. The effects are distinct on both ends, and there is no replacing one or the other. Can't really train force production without load anymore than you can train power without velocity.
Drug Miller's steroid use aside, his deadlift rep PRs are unreal. Especially since he does it almost like a stiff leg deadlift, crazy strength endurance. He did 405 for like 30+ reps
not out of the question though. jess buettner hits 405x12 @171. lifters like coach butler hit 405 for similar reps at a similar bodyweight. doug miller is probably 60lbs heavier than them
Hey Alex what are your thoughts on sissy squats as a squat accessory? Have you ever implemented them in your own training? If so, I’d love to hear your assessment of them. Thanks and keep the great content up!
I would look to an exercise like that less as a squat accessory, and more so as something that is going to condition the knees to be able to handle large amounts of forces combined with large degrees of flexion. Almost longevity training more so than anything else...in my opinion !
I'm still a bit skeptical with the necessity of higher intensities. Ik calisthenics athletes have to make up for low intensity with very high volume. But I feel an exclusive 8-12/8-15 range close to failure could still work, like Steve Reeves. Although strength gains might not be as much & you'd be reusing the same weights more.
To be fair, with your example of 6 hours of racket swings you also get stronger, if you progresively increase the weight of the racket while mantaining the ability of swinging up to 6 hours would you not eventually reach your natural limit of forearm size? If we limit that to 12-15 reps to failure could there not be an argument for that to be a good range that maximizes your hyperyrophy gains by also being a good range on wich to increase strength? Im not strong, i used to bench 100 kg x 3. Now i bench 100 kg x 12 and i much rather just do this than going back down to 3-5 reps and demolish my wrists. Is there going to be a time when i no longer get stronger on 12 reps and i will have to lower the reps in order to get stronger and have a heavier 12 reps?
I mean I guess theoretically you could increase the racket weight but that's just silly lol. There's nothing wrong with using higher reps like 12-15 for hypertrophy. So no, I would say there isn't going to be a point where increasing your 12RM would be impossible without raising your lower rep PRs as well. In fact, I think the 10-12 rep range is perfect for a lot of pressing movements and you'll probably make better strength and muscle gains doing so. This range is good for a lot of accessory movements as well. I think most people actually get stuck on the bench because they use weights that are too heavy that limit their rep range. On other hand other movements might not respond as favorably to the 10-15 range. I've noticed squatting and overhead pressing is this way. I respond much better to lower ranges, something like 5-8. So rep range is really movement dependent.
I really just don't see any solid evidence that there's any reason to not train like a natty, even though you might still make gains in gear with shit training, it's not optimal
Aren’t you assuming that progressive overload won’t just naturally happen and a strength base will in fact be built while utilizing a high rep range ? If I’m pushing myself consistently for years in a 10-20 rep range, I’ll get stronger in this rep range. The strength base will come.
The higher that the reps go the more the strength adaptations become blurred/reduced because the farther away from the ceiling that you are working. If this is the only kind of work you do then the strength gains will stagnate relatively quickly, which will ultimately cap the amount of muscle you can gain. The nervous system is the part of this equation that nobody seems to want to acknowledge.
Alec Steve shaw Fazlifts Stand strength Gvs NH I've seen you guys preaching the basics(truth) for a long ass time. But the lifting community always wants shortcuts. People still aren't getting it.
Hey Alec maybe little off topic but what rep range in general would you recommend for snatch grip high pulls? I want to start incorporating them but they are pretty new movement for me.
If he can show me a study where novelty was ruled out as the mechanism of action I will eat my hat. You would need a study where they control for novelty to rule out novelty. That alone requires a longer timeframe. Mike himself does not believe metabolite work will produce gains for very long. If that was the case bodybuilders would never lift heavy. It's almost like novelty is the only thing going on there. Another thing he didn't address was the level of advancement. If an advanced lifter is doing metabolite work with a weight a beginner can't even do 5 times then obviously he had to get strong enough to be able to make that metabolite work effective. The relative weight for the beginner would probably be bodyweight. You cannot even get noob gains with bodyweight curls, it wont stress a protein structure significantly enough. I do a little fluff n pump, and I think its effective to a degree, but only because I get a provacative stressor from other things I do. I think mike has too much confidence in his education, and needs to remember that exercise science is 10 to 50 years behind the gym. As well as it not even being a hard science to begin with.
He acts like the fact that there's research makes this a shut and closed case but all of these studies are done are beginners or early intermediates and they basically respond to any training.
Realistically 90% of people training are beginners. Due to the fact that there's a relatively high drop out rate, compounded with the amount of people who go in do low intensity and dog shit training. From a practical perspective it's important to highlight strength and compounds because: 1) Everything is weak, look at you. You need to work on everything. 2) Efficiency, my lower-body day is usually 2-3 exercises. I'll talk to guys who have 6-7 machines in there. Even if the time is the same, there's less mental real estate taken up. 3) Measurable progress and success. The mirror and your eyes can lie. Weight on the bar (assuming technique is the same) doesn't. So knowing you're adding weight at the same reps means you know you're getting better. Beginners are disproportionately influenced by the current activities of the enhanced and experienced.
Even most enhanced bodybuilders at the high level are pretty strong. Arnold, Franco, Ronnie, Jay Cutler, even people like Kai Greene that says he doesn’t train for strength but still benches 500 pounds for reps. Also, I like the science guys and I’ve learned a lot from them but Mike, Jeff Nippard, Eric Helms, etc always call Doug Miller and other people that are clearly enhanced “top natural genetics” and that’s kind of a joke.
The way I like to think of it is this: you need that base of strength to build muscle, enhanced or natural, you need that base. As an enhanced lifter the exogenous hormones will go a long long way towards helping you nuold that strength, regardless of how you train. There is research showing this, even sedentary people who are given testosterone get stronger by doing nothing. Larry wheels has alluded to this as well saying you can literally get good at powerlifitng by just swallow a Magic pill. So enhanced people will get strong by virtue of their enhancement regardless of hoe they train. Natties won't. They have to train in a way that is optimally conducive towards building that strength base, without the help of magic pills. If they can succeed in doing so then, imo, they will be capable of achieving all the hypertrophy they desire. But the point stands that that strength base is an underlying requirement either way, it's just easier to get it when you're enhanced.
So... I'm enhanced (but I only use testosterone, but NOT TRT, I actually blast 1g test from time to time), and I tried many training methods, many, but copying what you natural guys do gave me the best results of my life, both in strength and size, so I only follow training advice from nattys like NH, you, Bald Omni man, GVS, and AlphaDestiny mostly, thats what worked the best and keeps working every time, so I'll keep doing that, keeps me without the need of uping the dosage or using poisonous mindfucking shit like tren (never again, never)
I feel the exact same way. I run less than 1g/week when I do a cycle. Always keep the dose and compounds pretty mild. I too need to train as if I’m natural otherwise I don’t get great progress. My first couple cycles I was able to get away with ‘enhanced training’ but I found I couldn’t continue doing that and make gainz. I had to start following actual programs If I were to up the dose or add in new drugs then I could get away again with fluff and pump but there’s definitely a spectrum to not being natty. And I don’t think it’s fair to make it so black and white
Really speaks against the new fad of downplaying the dosages needed to get Instagram or ifbb bodies. As noble as the intention may be, lying about how much they're taking is as bad as lying about not needing drugs at all
I'm glad that you acknowledged that you are injecting test instead of saying you are on "TRT". I see idiots who are injecting 500mg, 600mg, or even 1g of test and they still have the audacity to say "it's just TRT bro".
Wouldnt the reason that tennis players and swimmers dont hypertrophy be that they dont work their muscles close enough to failure? you know, 1-4 reps or less in reserve.
Bodybuilders might not have the best one rep maxes but they normally have some crazy strength endurance and work capacity. All advanced bodybuilders can rep relatively heavy loads for reps.
Some channel is claiming my lifts are using fake plates, spot anything suspicious? Oh yeah and they also claim that there is no way I am a 500 lb deadlifter
You've said that enchanced people cant train in different ways, but isn't that just the case of them getting good results because of steroids, and if they programmed/trained like natural lifters, they would get more gains?
Guys that lift predominantly in the 6 reps or lower range like myself. I rarely if ever get a pump in that rep range like I do when work out in the 8-12 hypertrophy rep range (which I hardly train in at the moment).
The pump isn’t as maximal in the 5-6 rep range as 8-12, but I’ve never felt devoid of a pump. I guess that’s why the term ‘pump work’ always confused me
Dude needs to stay in his lane. The guy he uses as an example of a natural lifter looks like slightly smaller Jay Cutler. Tennis racket analogy is on point.
I think he said "within the 5-30 rep range", so the examples of tennis, swimming, etc, don't really disprove his point. I don't agree with him either though. I've tried lifting exclusively using 20 reps for everything and I actually lost size quickly. I don't think a natural can benefit much on very high reps (over 15).
They are a blend of metabolite/pump work of varying styles and even have elements of power mixed in. Actually, tennis is probably the best example of all because each point lasts for about 10-30 seconds...you rally 10-20 times (reps), rest for a few seconds and then do it again. And you do that 2-3 hours at a time. The only difference is the intensity is slightly lower and the velocity is higher as compared to bodybuilding work. There are actually many similarities to the techniques he discusses though.
@@BuJammy you are not in a small group. Getting stronger in the 20 rep range builds pretty much the same amount of muscle as lower rep range. Its about preference and efficiency. And of course if you want to be better at 1rm then you need to train it separatley but all strength is still strength no matter the rep range.
@@joojotin getting stronger at 20 reps does build the same amount of muscle, no doubt...possibly even more when compared to 10 reps or less, for example. However, the gains stagnate very quickly and you hit a ceiling because you are not able to build strength like that long term wheh using high reps in isolation. That is why lower rep work, 10 reps or less, is also going to be important. It spurs the strength gains on for a longer period of time and the 2 methods feed off of each other. They are symbiotic and complementary. This is literally the exact point I have tried to make in my last 2 videos but somehow people aren't gettingng it.
Hey Alec, what is your take on hyperplasia. Came across some random fat guy on the internet, who says it is the only proper way to train for gaining real strength and size. It is supposedly done through many sets for about 10 reps. Sounds like bullshit to me. Anyone can share their opinion if you want, I would appreciate it.
I don't know much about hyperplasia, but I do know that doing "many sets of 10" if quite often a waste of time. Personally, I tend to ignore the advice of fat guys on the internet when it comes to fitness.
@@EnkiriElite thank you for the response, man. Yes,in my experience it is stupid ,yet it still sounded kind of interesting that you supposedly can build new muscle fibers that your body didn't have before. I guess this method is a scam, still thanks for your time.
Mike does encourage strength training. I think he's more saying that an inclusion of pump training alongside strength focused routines is the best of both worlds. I think this, in part, because of his other videos. The one you're critiquing probably doesn't clarify everything in the way that it should. His video on using the pump to moderate volume is strange to me. I don't really get a pump in certain muscles very easily. If I specifically choose exercises and rep ranges that encourage it, I no longer am prioritising strength. And that's where I disagree with Mike, and it's pretty much what you're saying as well. Strength should always take precedence. If there's room for pump training, great, include it. But it should not ideally be a primary focus because it limits long-term progression. Strength allows for the use of metabolite training to be effective, so by sacrificing strength for the pump, you're hamstringing your more optimal pump training.
My rule for myself has always been: Never more then 5 rep on deadlift and back squats and between 12-15 reps on smaller movements like a bicepcurl. I don't think anyone is doing 3 rep bicepcurls out there, right? Doing 30 reps on anything is cardio, not muscle training.
I started test like a year ago but I had been lifting naturally since I was 15 and I'm 32. I don't see the point in the natural or enhanced debate personally because a lot of people in my gym don't even have programming. I get excited when people are actually strong or progressing. And if I can hide people up by lifting something I'm happy about it. I don't go encouraging people to pin hopefully I'm encouraging them to keep going and get stronger. It makes me sad there's only a handful of people in my commercial gym that are actually strong and most of them are women. Which is cool I'm always like good job but a lot of people are just taking up space and dicking around. No progression they're just there to play like it's recess. And then people are like I wonder why I'm not getting stronger? Smh. People could do a hell of a lot naturally but they need a plan.
You're preaching to the choir man! I sell programs for a living lol, and I fully agree with you that most people need a better one...if I didn't then that would mean I didn't believe in my own product! And yeah, that's the funny part about dicking around in the gym...why go to a gym just to "exercise" without any sort of direction? If you just want to mess around why not go and do it outside in the fresh air?
Before you judge others, realize that you are a junky. They may be re recreational lifters that are not meeting your standards, but they will most likely live a longer life than you, and not be dependent on a substance to function normally. They could very easily judge you back for pinning for no real good reason, besides vanity?
@@JoshBenware comparing me to a drug addict is stupid. A lot of people are lazy a lot of people can do better it's not about whether or not I'm taking testosterone it's the truth. You're like those people that go to church on Sunday so that they can judge each other throughout the week. People can try harder natural or enhanced period. I love the gym I've been doing it since I was 15 and I have a minor physical disability so if anything I'm enhancing my quality of life if it makes you feel better to look down on me when everyone's on the machines on their phones good for you bud. You can't tell me most people in the gym couldn't benefit from a program or they couldn't try a little harder. If Alec himself can agree with me you can just suck a fat one. Go jerk off natural hypertrophy.
@@EnkiriElite exactly man like I love it I got really decently strong but my friend he had really good genetics and we were Auto regulating for years we were doing push pull legs but we didn't have structure so the past like 5 years I've been doing strong lifts and I got stronger because I had a plan. Sometimes I have to wait like 30 minutes for a bench and I would be done in less than 10 minutes. It's frustrating but I'm not out here telling people like yeah I'm on testosterone I want to get people hyped up and excited for progress.
What I would say is that Dr Mike doesn’t preach that just doing pump work exclusively will get you jacked. He even states in almost every over video that you need to be getting stronger over time in a variety of rep ranges. You can’t just add volume or slower eccentrics etc you need to get stronger. He just doesn’t necessarily believe that sets below 5reps are massively hypertrophic, which is fair. Also, if you check out some of the top legit drug free bodybuilders (AJ Morris) for example, he is legitimately strong. Bloke squats 180kg for 18 reps, and pulls 220kg for 8+. So although he does a lot of machine and isolation work he’s genuinely strong as fuck for a natural at the big movements so.
This is unrelated but that is an interesting strength discrepancy! Squatting 180kg for 18 is HUGE. Pulling 220 for 8 is....considerably less huge. Very interesting. My guess is this (never heard of him) built his base with free weights before transitioning much more so into machine work. And that's really the thing. Many of the guys who did that seem to leave that part out of the equation for some reason. "Well here's what I do *now*" Ok but what you did for the first 5-10 years may have been even more important lol. I'll be honest, I can't remember what I actually said in this video. But I remember from the comments that there was a misunderstanding between a term I was using and what people were taking that to mean. I say this because you mention the 5 rep thing, which is something I agree with. If hypertrophy was the only goal I'm not sure I would EVER have somebody go below 5 reps.
@@EnkiriElite I agree, his squat is mental and you’re definitely right. What people do prior to ‘build their base’ as it were is definitely highly correlated with their size potential. I think people just get caught up in the naturals need to get stronger argument and take that as everyone basically needs to be a competitive powerlifter. When Infact even natural bodybuilders and such agree that getting stronger and moving more weight in the bar/machine/db etc overtime is paramount, just perhaps in a larger rep range. Great video as always anyway mate!
Dr. Mike offers no science to back his conjectures. He begins by noting research on metabolite training on natties which did not involve enhanced lifters which means no inferences of the differences between the two can be drawn. He then ulimately suggests over focusing on pump training is bad for groups which means that the intially cited research must have shown that pump training's results are very good. This is basically Coach Greg without the screaming.
Ive noticed this with a huge % of Mike's content. It borders on scientism without actual references. He either should do more deep dives with specific studies like MASS reviews do, or rebrand as a rhetoric based channel, rather than science. His pain science content is similar. It's rational with certain basic assumptions, but not literature based.
"Strength work" was being used as a pretty loose term here....I was just using it a quick way to describe pretty much any type of work done in the 5-10 rep range on a big compound exercise (squat, bench, deadlift, ohp, chinup, dip, etc etc) and with a focus on increasing the loading slowly over time within that rep range. Pump/metabolite work is going to refer to higher rep stuff where the focus is less on the load being used or even on moving the weight, and more so on "contracting the muscle" and making it tired through a high volume of work. 20+ reps per set. I use both of these methods in my own training to varying extents.
@@EnkiriElite so the tennis comparison is quite meaningless no? there is a major difference between hundreds (thousands?) of reps which are further from failure and "high rep" work which is maximum 40 reps. not only that you are also keeping the load the same.
@@naorovadia1161 no, not really. You rally in tennis 10-20 times per point, you take a very short rest, and then you do it again. And you repeat that for several hours. The loading is lower, but the velocity is higher. The similarities are actually quite high, and so are the results that typically occur.
@@naorovadia1161 when you find it, which is going to be very quickly because that type of work does not actually make you stronger in any significant fashion
Hahaha I think I saw that. I am honestly not sure if Mike is trolling us with that one or not....but it wouldn't make sense for him to use an example he didn't truly believe was natty because then he would be disproving his own point. As much as I respect the man, he has some clear biases and insecurities that present themselves when he is talking about PED usage.
@@EnkiriElite my response was something along the lines of “I don’t really know anything, I just apply Occam’s razor”. Yeah he’s a knowledgeable man who can teach plenty of people real principles of hypertrophy but we all have biases
I thought you where supposed to gradually go up in weight and intensity with pump style training. Your also still meant to go to failure with pump style training. However pump training by itself will have its limitations because it’s more difficult to drive progressing with just pump style training.
The problem with fluff and pump is that it generally never reaches the optimal percentage of orm to actually induce hypertrophy over time. The load is too light after a certain point.
@@BasedChadman there is evidence that pump style training like BFR dose have muscle building benefits but it should be supplemental to a proper training program.
Honestly, I don't give a flying fuck about research, knowledge is ultimately experiential when it comes to training because there are way to many different individual factors. In my experience, light weight high volume isolation work (machine and cable focused) is the reason why there are naturals at the gym who, after a decade of training, look like they started lifting yesterday and then bullshit like "bad genetics" start trending. I only started gaining muscle when I dropped that shit and started focusing on calisthenics and weighted calisthenics, two of the fastest ways to get very strong, interestingly enough. Now I'm combing very frequent heavy barbell lifting old school strongman style (inspired by Hackenschmidt and Saxon) with cali and weighted cali, that combination is giving me the best gains of my short life and I'm glad I found out about it when I'm still very young (21). No one in my family is particularly jacked so I trust it's way more about the right type of hard work than it is about genetics. I don't need a research to tell me that a training style invented by enhanced athletes for enhanced athletes will never be as good for me as the training style naturals have been using throughout history (heavy lifting + gymnastics), critical thinking is enough.
Total agree man. I have always felt that literature regarding recreational training is somewhat of a pointless endeavor. Sure, study precise methodology for sport so that Russia or China or the US can try to snag a few more gold medals at the Olympics (but even that's a crapshoot honestly). But in terms of literature for gen. pop training...what are we really even learning?
@@EnkiriElite Even precise methodology for high level competitive sports usually boils down to how can we accommodate intensity and frequency with performance, basically how to work hard a lot without being half dead when the time to perform comes and the old timers knew how to do that. They practiced many different lifts and they practiced pretty much everyday. A heavy deadlift session yesterday was too exhausting? Instead of resting today just train one hand deadlifts and let your back take a break from super heavy loads.
There’s just no way someone can convince me that you don’t need to be or get stronger as a natty to get jacked. Someone with only a 225 bench isn’t gonna have a barrel chest. And someone who can squat 405 for 10 isn’t gonna have chicken legs. This is just what I’ve seen from actual natural lifters.
I view some of Israetel's content, he's got some good info and he's a smart guy. But he's not natty yet speaks so cavalier about natty training compared to enhanced. When you watch his training videos it's nothing more than causing massive fatigue to obviously enhanced lifters through 3 or 4 different movements with multiple failure sets. Nothing new here been done for ages. As a natty, this style of training will bury you after a few weeks.
Yeah his practical training advice is not very good. Which is funny because he gained the vast majority of his size by simply getting super strong. He use to overhead press 225 for like 10 reps lol.
His videos at the end of training blocks which he REPEATEDLY SAYS IS NOT HOW HE USUALLY TRAINS? Goddamn dude, no matter how easily digestible people make the content there are people who just don't pay attention.
Yeah, I'm honestly a little baffled at Mike using the Doug example. Shows me he is a little bit out of touch with the realities of "unenhanced" lifting.
Between this and recently perpetuating the 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight myth, it looks like Dr. Mike has been doing a little bit of trolling as of late. Doug is obviously a genetic powerhouse and has worked hard to get to where he is now, but naturally? Come on now...
I thought the same thing about the Doug Miller example, but I cannot understand why he would do that because it explicitly disproves the point he was trying to make there in that example lol. But who knows, maybe he has some elaborate ruse going on behind the scenes!
just as big, if not bigger than you and ive literally never trained for strength. still managed to pull 455 on deadlift and squat 405 tho…i think your reeaally over estimating the importance of strength for hypertrophy here man
@@EnkiriElite i was obese and then anorexic before i started. and I am speaking relatively not raw magnitude. either way thats not the point. the natural obsession with strength training to build muscle is just not true. even on just a surface level, hypertrophy is a structural adaptation, strength is largely neurological. strength comes and goes with training. there is no reason to believe (and quite frankly its a huge logical leap) to assume training for 1rms is going to benefit you when trying to build muscle
@@saudibonesawexpert8937 you are absolutely correct. Training for 1rm's has no place in pure hypertrophic training. I went out of my way to illustrate that that is not a concept I am referring to when talking about strength training for muscle gain...so I'm not sure what to tell ya other than listen more closely to what I am actually saying, not what you want me to be saying.
I don’t understand the notion that we need a base of strength to build muscle whether we are natty or not. First off, how are we defining a base of strength? Also, I’m pretty sure beginners can gain decent muscle from doing a wide spectrum of rep ranges (6-15) without solely working on strength. Is there something I’m missing?
Yes, you are missing the fact that "strength work" was only very loosely defined in Mike's video and was basically being used as a term to describe any compound exercise done in any rep range from basically 5-15 with a focus in adding weight to the bar over time. Whereas pump work was loosely defined as isolation exercises done for 20+ reps. No one said anything about needing to go below 6 reps evem
@@EnkiriElite okay got it. Then I would agree with you. I think what causes confusion is a lack of specific definitions. I don’t know why he would define ‘pump work’ as going above 20 reps when we can get a pump from any rep range. I think pump work is more specific to using lower rest periods and the increase in metabolic accumulation from that
@@alexwright5954 I think it highly depends on the situation..but it can certainly be easier in many instances to get the targeted pump you are looking for with isolation exercises and high reps..he repeatedly referred in his video to the concept of even going up to sets of 30 where "pump/metabolic work" was concerned. So I ran with that. I was in no way suggesting that anyone who's sole goal is muscular hypertrophy ever needs to do an exercise for
I really like Dr Mike, and think he’s a good source of information generally. However - in this video he’s either being extremely ignorant, or extremely dishonest, and I can’t figure it out which it is
For being such a smart guy it's pretty mind boggling that he actually thinks Doug is natural. He give good advice and obviously knows a lot but his general training advice of progressing volume and reducing RIR over the weeks is pretty bad practical training advice.
Doug looks like a dbz fusion dance version of GVS and Natural Hypertrophy combined. He’s only natural if he’s an actual alien.
😂😂 this x1000
@@EnkiriElite yea I usually give people the benefit of the doubt but he's reeeeally sus, just such a weird example to choose especially given that he's actually pretty strong
@@GVS yeah, it makes me think Mike has his blinders on when it comes to PED usage. I think he has some pretty large biases on that topic.
@@EnkiriElite no doubt
His delts give it away. I honestly don’t think anyone can grow quads like that naturally. I would love for someone to prove me wrong about that. But we’ll never know if someone is genuinely natural. And unlike Geoffrey, I don’t give people the benefit of the doubt. Especially, in this day and age.
Mike is definitely losing my respect. It’s sad. Because I thought he knew what he was talking about. Having a PhD is a big deal. But if you can’t even use your brain to realize that Doug might not be natural, then that’s kind of sad.
The natty community on UA-cam has never been stronger thanks to people like you
Thanks man. I am glad you have found the content helpful.
Never been stronger? Are they on perhaps TRT?
@@Abraham_Kist-Okazaki
Hahaha, might be or not
Loved your analogy that while we’re all rectangles, enhanced lifters (squares) can bend or apply different rules to their training that us natty’s (rectangles) can’t. Very true statement, & that’s why it’s a very bad practice for PED users to push or promote their practices on the natty population, as it can be especially harmful to the beginners who don’t know any better. 💪
Yeah, I think that was my primary point of contention with Dr. Mike here, as he really wanted to eliminate the concept of there needing to be differences between the training styles....and while he's right that there don't *need* to be differences...there just are because for whatever reason enhanced bodybuilders have decided to train in a particular, sub-optimal way. I think Mike has some pretty glaring biases that present themselves anytime he discussing PED usage. Just something I've noticed over time. Glad you enjoyed the video man.
@@EnkiriElite I forget where I heard it but I think due to the PED usage the muscles in enhanced bodybuilders grow so large and develop faster than the ligaments and tendons that they end up snapping their shit up more so the pump style work was slowly adapted to mitigate the risk.
@@UnprofessionalAthlete You basically heard right, as it’s been found that PED users have a much higher risk of tendon ruptures. Though none of the research to date is completely conclusive, the findings point to that tendons & ligaments (connective tissue) cannot get stronger remotely as fast as the muscles can when someone is using PEDs, and it can also cause them to become a bit more rigid & less elastic over time. That’s one of the biggest reasons why PED users tend to have a much higher rate of tearing their tendons/ligaments than their natty counterparts.
@@FitLabb All more reason to stay natty
@@UnprofessionalAthlete hmm...makes sense
As someone who spent 12+ years on metabolite-pump-and-fluff bro work in the gym, I can only agree. You can grow a pretty good amount of muscle mass doing only this, but you are definitely capped by the low-ish intensity. Plus, you might end up ridden with mobility and joint issues if you do not devote sufficient time truly mastering the complex, compound barbell movement and only rely on machines or single-joint exercises. I was like this after spending a decade on leg presses, leg extensions and machine stuff.
By fluff and pump do you mean super high reps, or not training close to failure?
@@keeran9306 Neither specifically. I mean hopping from exercice to exercice, without planning any long-term progression, and devoting the bulk of my time and energy to single-joint exercices, machines, and assisted movements. You may feel like you train to failure this way (a long or heavy set on a leg press if definitely painful), or may be unable to do a lot of reps; but you are still going nowhere on the long run. You just become pretty good at the leg press specifically, and add a little bit of mass to your quads. That is about it, even after a decade of religiously working 5 days a week on machines. There is a world of difference between this and, say, devoting six months to learn to squat properly, and becoming a strong and regular squatter - in terms of strength, size, mobility, joint health and day-to-day life in general.
@@larche Oh gotcha. Thanks for that.
@@larche I appreciate the firsthand input here man!
@@larche What about RSIs from doing squats/BPs so often?
I’m just so tired of the “where’s the research paper on that”, “if there isn’t a study on it then you can’t say it’s true”. People are telling us not to trust our own eyes but to trust some study where everyone is a stranger. No thanks. Great video Alec.
As a engineering student and lifting enthusiast, I couldn't agree more.
@@thijs5931 that’s funny, I am an engineer working in gas control and systems.
Research is overrated for resistance training due to key factors that can and does influence results. If we took research at face value then generally there’s no reason to lift lower than say 15 reps (exception is stuff like targeting triceps on bench they’re activated more under a heavy load) and you can leave 3 reps in the tank on every set
Lol that's why all of these "evidence based" content creators are a joke. They act all high and mighty because they know the research. Even though the vast majority of research is done on beginners and early intermediates who respond to basically anything they do in the gym. Hypertrophy and strength training are not hard sciences that can be cleanly measured.
@@Soccasteve Unpopular Mike’s advice isn’t even all that good no idea why he’s considered so great. His achievements aren’t that great either in terms of relative strength. Just another drug user with great genetics from what I see. His volume recommendations straight up suck
Natty’s have been getting bigger and stronger physically and argumentatively. Bad information or incomplete information gets called out no matter who it comes from and now we can refer to actual naturals like you. Great vid man.
Glad you enjoyed it man!
The Golden Age of Noble Natty content never ceases to disappoint 🤓😎
I can't believe Dr. Mike used Drug Miller as an example, as soon as he said his name my eyes rolled
I have to admit it was a bit perplexing lol
And even if he was it’s a bad argument because 99%+ of ppl don’t have freak genetics. Ppl with freak genetics are basically like drug users
Lmfao, DR Mike is a good guy, but still claiming after many years that Drug Miller is natty is just insane.
- Mike natural
The natural league, but enkiri, Alpha destiny, bald Omni Man, all these three guys are my favorite
Much love from Brazil guys, my friends are learning English to watch your videos too
Hey that's awesome man! Glad you enjoy the content.
Natural Gallant is pretty solid .
é nois mano
Great video Alec, square analogy is pure gold!
@@slee2695 True 👍
Anytime someone uses Doug Miller as a sample natty, I find it hard to listen to the rest of what they have to say. I do think Doc Mike does more good than harm in the industry.
He's a super smart guy which is why it's mind boggling that he actually thinks Doug is natty. Mike's general training advice about volume, pump, and progressing RIR over the weeks is pretty poor training advice in my experience.
Fellas just use progressive overload no matter what rep range you're using. Add weight and/ or reps over time. Simple as that.
I preach this and some people can't believe its really that easy, lots of people don't wanna bother tracking their sessions though and just wing it when they go into the gym
I remember hearing about Doug about a year ago. I don’t even know why I crack up every time I hear his nickname “Drug Miller”. It’s not a clever joke or even creative, but I still laugh whenever I hear it lmao
It's cleverness lies in its simplicity in getting the point across lol
Very good square/rectangle analogy, it only matters though when people (beginners) are unknowingly wasting time with this, like you I personally don't really give a...and in the end enjoying the process of gym, getting fitter, trying hard hard, is what matters, we're not all aspiring utube milionaires, and I don't really give a...about them either
I feel I’ve gotten an impressive amount of natty leg and back size from almost exclusively low rep/ high intensity. 505 squat, 180 lb chin up for example.
They did studies where leg size was near equal between tested power lifters (low reps) and untested bodybuilders (higher reps)
I feel natties must get strong to get big.
If you have good body part genetics or on roids I believe you can train however u want including fluff and pump. For example my chest has always been big and responds to anything. Therefore I don’t really train it as much as anything else.
A natty won’t have good genetics for every body part tho lol. That’s a distinguishing factor of roid use, weak points are still strong.
I didn’t look up the Doug Miller guy omg yea he seems saucier than an italian restaurant.
I love mike but I think Mike hasnt trainer natty beginners in a long time.
If he was benching 375 at 19 he had great genetics
Weighted tennis racket for forearms gains. Got it.
I agree
I was doing bro splits for the first few years and barely got any bigger or stronger
Decided to focus on strength and started madcow 5x5 and added over 100lb to my squat and deads and gained weight while remaining on the same level of body fat
Of course all of this on my beginner years after like 2 years the gains stopped being so linear
Gained weight same body fat?
Yes. Also what happened to me and it’s so goddamn satisfying. Also dieting after is so much easier. You can eat a lot and still lose weight.
I've seen and heard the same thing with a lot of other guys. Bro splits and PPL splits are the two splits I would never recommend someone follow.
Like the video a lot.
Getting stronger is not only logical but one of the driving factors why staying in the game long term has so much meaning and fun behind it.
On the topic of metabolites and why tennis players and swimmers arent jacked to the Gilles I still have to say that this was not the best comparison.
I believe mike as some valid points and that the cutoff point of efective rep ranges are at the 30 rep Mark's is logical to me.
Somewhere there has to be a cutoff point and that is around that 30 rep mark, tennis players do thousands as you said.
The sheer volume and novelty will as with all beginners give some gains but after the first stage there is no further factor in it anymore.
Still doing a rather stretngh biased training program is in my opinion not only more fun but also more effective altough you can shift in both hypertrophie and strength a little bit when you are more advanced.
See Geoffrey Schofield he is jacked and is not nearly as strong as he looks but also because of many factors bejond training
I saw the dr mike video. It was good but to be honest the way he ended it I was a bit offended. And you absolutely explained everything he got wrong.
The first issue with the tennis player doesn't make sense because the pump metabolite work of 15-25 reps can still raise in intensity via weight on bar/dumbell. So it wouldn't hit the tennis player limit.
True, but only up to a certain point. If all you do is pump work you are not getting stronger.
@@EnkiriElite but you can get stronger in a higher rep range albeit it's gonna take longer to progress than doing it in a lower rep range but still
@@EnkiriElite do you think the tennis player is not any stronger after getting his arm massive? all they did is pump work, did they get stronger?
Highly agree with what you said.
While it is true that light weights can build muscle, the weight has to be above 30% of 1 rep max. Anything below that is highly suboptimal. Most people ignore this to be train heavy and build up strength. No bodybuilder lifts pink baby weights. Yes, the weights may be light but not feathers. Everyone, natty or not will have build-up strength. The concept that you do not need to grow stronger to become bigger is wrong.
Miss that white background, it looked very professional.
I have done isolation work not many times, but the times i have done it, it has done nothing, idk if im judging the work quality wrong, but they currently never give me doms. I.e. i have done curls after some compound work, so basically im very pumped when i started the curls. Did 3-4 sets of curls until failure, even some rest pauses if i recall correctly. I did this only 4 training in a row, and have done it in some ocassions just to give it another try.
Outcome has been pretty bad, didn't have doms the next days. As i tell before, idk if im judging this well, but i was expecting some pain the days after because this was a new stimulus for me.
By the other hand, i recently changed supinated pulls for neutral grip weighted pulls and THESE have trashed out my biceps recently, outcome has been surprisingly good.
Same for other compound exercises, there is not a single weighted dips session that haven't got my pecs sore the next day or even starting to hurt late the same day.
I do find "chasing the pump" has its place, for recovery purposes.
Isolation work is useful, but it has to be progressed just like your compound movements. Just pumping away will do very little to help your long term progress.
Theres so many ways to grow muscle. Thats why we should emphasize the importance of macro periodization, if properly done we can have the best of both worlds. In my athletes i like to put them in strenght phases specially when they are in caloroc surplus and some pump and high rep stuff (specially on isolation movements) specially in some caloric restriction diets. Srry for the english its not my maine languaje
Would be great if you could do a video on the benefits of doing hip snatches/hip power snatches like shot-putters and other kind of throwers do
i want to see your form breakdown video on ivan djurics squat and deadlift...would be great!
I'm a tall guy. At 6'4" the 5x5 program basically made me stronger, slightly larger, and constantly exhausted my core and spine. Since switching to a 8-15 rep range, even based on your hip thrust recommendation, and doing things like pre exhausting my quads before squatting so I'm using less weight to save my back, I'm seeing gains on this long ass frame.
I fear if I go the pure strength route, no disrespect to Zack Telander, that I'll be a super strong gangly guy like Zack Telander.
Whatever works for you man! I wasn't referring to using "pure" strength work in this video. I was really only distinguishing between using sets of 5-10 on compounds as "strength work" vs sets of 20+ as pump work.
@@EnkiriElite thanks for the reply! For some reason I was just now notified. Love your content
I have a question about back extension set ups. You said you prefer the 45 degree one cause its better suited to the strength curve vs. the 90 degree one. I have an argument. Assuming you are deadlifting and do rdl. You get the least resistance at the top of the movement during lockout. At that point your hamstrings and many muscles are not as active. Now wouldn’t the 90 degree hyper be better to fill the gap as it will hit the muscles at that position as the muscles would be worked in the other positions during rdl and deadlift. Thank you if you get to this.
I think people need to really consider their own genetics and what they respond better to. Muscle fiber types can dictate whether you respond better to heavier work or lighter work for various muscle groups. Trial and error works the best. It’s fine to use someone else’s template to begin with but when you experiment on what works best for you you create a program that creates the best gains for you.
Yeah I definitely agree to experimenting AFTER building a solid strength base
As one of the few real PED users I can safely say, the more PED's you take, the less working out matters.
If someone takes more than 500mg, he can literally build more muscle by squeezing a shit out on a toilet than a natty can with a hard workout..
Also.. I guess it makes sense though.. I mean, look at Mike's head, GH abuse turned him into a demon
I guess you just increase volume thru pump, then deload, increase intensity in the same rep rangr and repeat. There will always be a heavier tennis racquet for a bodybuilder :)
The problem is that absent exogenous hormones...you do not continue to get stronger if all you are doing is pump/metabolite work in the 20+ rep range. You do for a short period of time, but then you hit an impenetrable wall and will not be able to improve performance in that reo range. So then what do you do?
@@andrewbuchwach2946 everyone seems to have forgotten the fact that the nervous system is a thing. Speaking with the bodybuilding community these Past few weeks has been quite illuminating actually.
You joke about fahves....but if you are using 5s while following your rule about being "sufficiently close to failure" then you are training your nervous system. The same cannot be said of a weight you can do 20+ reps with. A natural trainee cannot leave their nervous system behind, so if you do nothing but 20 reps plus per set you will eventually become capped in terms of how much muscle you can build because you will have been ignoring the nervous system....the intensity of the stimulus is not potent enough to spur those neural adaptations, so the adaptations will be mostly mechanical. Do that long enough and you end up stagnant.
And no,.switching to leg pressing or box squatting in the same 20+ rep range would not allevaviaye the stagnation I experienced during the 20 rep squats..
Justifying a lack of using moderately heavy work or higher by saying that "equivalent RIRs have the same effect" is literally ignoring the entire accumulation of strength training and weight training knowledge up to this point. So intensity has become obsolete, apparently. It's a very interesting notion.
@@EnkiriElite @Enkiri Elite Fitness if 20 rep squats work for legs, 20 rep benches will work for chest. Systemic fatigue mostly happens with axial loading, so just avoid those if you can.
As for stalling in strength in the 20 rep range, deload and increase the weight a lil then work your volume up again until you're once again in the 20rep range with that lil bit more weight. It's like peaking for a 1rm but in a way that would make Louie Simmons disown you :)
Horrible for long term absolute strength, but you maximise metabolite based gains for sure.
@@andrewbuchwach2946 if you are interested in learning some of the basic concepts regarding the role of and importance of the nervous system I would suggest reading this : www.t-nation.com/training/the-science-of-10-x-3/
As well as pretty much any other article written by Chad waterbury om the nervous system. This one though will give you an idea of why you can't eliminate the concept if you are hoping to maximize long term progress, and why force production relative to the individual's ceiling matters. Intensity cannot be substituted simply by adding more volume or going to failure. The effect on the body is not the same.
@@andrewbuchwach2946 if the body can produce 100 units of force and you only ever expose it to 30 units...and then suddenly you start exposing it to 80 units. You truly believe that the effect on the body would be the same? He literally says in the article that high force training preferentially recruits the type in fibers with the largest potential for growth..
I am honestly a bit flabbergasted at this point. I mean no offense because youve been polite, but I was truly unaware that there were lifters out there doubting the validity or necessity of these concepts at all. I really have nothing more to add, other than I would encourage to implement some of these concepts for yourself and see what happens. The effects are distinct on both ends, and there is no replacing one or the other. Can't really train force production without load anymore than you can train power without velocity.
Drug Miller's steroid use aside, his deadlift rep PRs are unreal. Especially since he does it almost like a stiff leg deadlift, crazy strength endurance. He did 405 for like 30+ reps
Definitely some impressive pulling.
not out of the question though. jess buettner hits 405x12 @171. lifters like coach butler hit 405 for similar reps at a similar bodyweight. doug miller is probably 60lbs heavier than them
I’ve done 405x10 at 160ish
I think many IFBB pro and other amateur bodybuilders' deadlifts look like that. Even CBUM.
@@GhettoPCbuilds I've done 800x80 at 80lbs bodyweight
It's always good to hear your insight on things like this Alec
Prob your best video….keep it up….we need someone to fight the bs
Hey Alec just something off topic how often do you get your blood work checked?I mean blood sugar,lipid profile,thyroid levels,HbA1C etc
Hey Alex what are your thoughts on sissy squats as a squat accessory? Have you ever implemented them in your own training? If so, I’d love to hear your assessment of them. Thanks and keep the great content up!
I would look to an exercise like that less as a squat accessory, and more so as something that is going to condition the knees to be able to handle large amounts of forces combined with large degrees of flexion. Almost longevity training more so than anything else...in my opinion !
@@EnkiriElite Interesting never thought about it like that but makes alot of sense!
I'm still a bit skeptical with the necessity of higher intensities. Ik calisthenics athletes have to make up for low intensity with very high volume. But I feel an exclusive 8-12/8-15 range close to failure could still work, like Steve Reeves.
Although strength gains might not be as much & you'd be reusing the same weights more.
Just curious, what is your intro song? been wondering for months lol
To be fair, with your example of 6 hours of racket swings you also get stronger, if you progresively increase the weight of the racket while mantaining the ability of swinging up to 6 hours would you not eventually reach your natural limit of forearm size?
If we limit that to 12-15 reps to failure could there not be an argument for that to be a good range that maximizes your hyperyrophy gains by also being a good range on wich to increase strength?
Im not strong, i used to bench 100 kg x 3. Now i bench 100 kg x 12 and i much rather just do this than going back down to 3-5 reps and demolish my wrists.
Is there going to be a time when i no longer get stronger on 12 reps and i will have to lower the reps in order to get stronger and have a heavier 12 reps?
I mean I guess theoretically you could increase the racket weight but that's just silly lol.
There's nothing wrong with using higher reps like 12-15 for hypertrophy. So no, I would say there isn't going to be a point where increasing your 12RM would be impossible without raising your lower rep PRs as well. In fact, I think the 10-12 rep range is perfect for a lot of pressing movements and you'll probably make better strength and muscle gains doing so. This range is good for a lot of accessory movements as well. I think most people actually get stuck on the bench because they use weights that are too heavy that limit their rep range.
On other hand other movements might not respond as favorably to the 10-15 range. I've noticed squatting and overhead pressing is this way. I respond much better to lower ranges, something like 5-8. So rep range is really movement dependent.
He actually mentioned that in the video, but also that it's not feasible for the sake of performance in the sport
Enkiri you're the man! Just wanted to say that lol no context
I appreciate that!
I really just don't see any solid evidence that there's any reason to not train like a natty, even though you might still make gains in gear with shit training, it's not optimal
Agreed 100%. Enhanced guys don't do it because it's optimal, they do it because it's easier and they can get away with it. Point blank.
Noble natty, checking in.
Noble natties assemble
Time for roll call!
Aren’t you assuming that progressive overload won’t just naturally happen and a strength base will in fact be built while utilizing a high rep range ? If I’m pushing myself consistently for years in a 10-20 rep range, I’ll get stronger in this rep range. The strength base will come.
The higher that the reps go the more the strength adaptations become blurred/reduced because the farther away from the ceiling that you are working. If this is the only kind of work you do then the strength gains will stagnate relatively quickly, which will ultimately cap the amount of muscle you can gain. The nervous system is the part of this equation that nobody seems to want to acknowledge.
Do you lift the same weight for 20 reps now as you did when you were 12?
I knew either you or GVS would be doing a response to this! Looking forward to it
I hope you enjoy it man.
An important note people should know: not all drug use is the same. It’s a spectrum. Someone who runs
Alec
Steve shaw
Fazlifts
Stand strength
Gvs
NH
I've seen you guys preaching the basics(truth) for a long ass time. But the lifting community always wants shortcuts. People still aren't getting it.
Hey Alec maybe little off topic but what rep range in general would you recommend for snatch grip high pulls? I want to start incorporating them but they are pretty new movement for me.
5s at first, and then 3s will usually be the sweet spot once you're comfortable with it.
@@EnkiriElite Thanks.
Hey men off topic gow how you work out after a bicep strain
If he can show me a study where novelty was ruled out as the mechanism of action I will eat my hat.
You would need a study where they control for novelty to rule out novelty. That alone requires a longer timeframe.
Mike himself does not believe metabolite work will produce gains for very long. If that was the case bodybuilders would never lift heavy.
It's almost like novelty is the only thing going on there.
Another thing he didn't address was the level of advancement. If an advanced lifter is doing metabolite work with a weight a beginner can't even do 5 times then obviously he had to get strong enough to be able to make that metabolite work effective. The relative weight for the beginner would probably be bodyweight. You cannot even get noob gains with bodyweight curls, it wont stress a protein structure significantly enough.
I do a little fluff n pump, and I think its effective to a degree, but only because I get a provacative stressor from other things I do.
I think mike has too much confidence in his education, and needs to remember that exercise science is 10 to 50 years behind the gym. As well as it not even being a hard science to begin with.
He acts like the fact that there's research makes this a shut and closed case but all of these studies are done are beginners or early intermediates and they basically respond to any training.
Realistically 90% of people training are beginners. Due to the fact that there's a relatively high drop out rate, compounded with the amount of people who go in do low intensity and dog shit training. From a practical perspective it's important to highlight strength and compounds because:
1) Everything is weak, look at you. You need to work on everything.
2) Efficiency, my lower-body day is usually 2-3 exercises. I'll talk to guys who have 6-7 machines in there. Even if the time is the same, there's less mental real estate taken up.
3) Measurable progress and success. The mirror and your eyes can lie. Weight on the bar (assuming technique is the same) doesn't. So knowing you're adding weight at the same reps means you know you're getting better.
Beginners are disproportionately influenced by the current activities of the enhanced and experienced.
Even most enhanced bodybuilders at the high level are pretty strong. Arnold, Franco, Ronnie, Jay Cutler, even people like Kai Greene that says he doesn’t train for strength but still benches 500 pounds for reps.
Also, I like the science guys and I’ve learned a lot from them but Mike, Jeff Nippard, Eric Helms, etc always call Doug Miller and other people that are clearly enhanced “top natural genetics” and that’s kind of a joke.
The way I like to think of it is this: you need that base of strength to build muscle, enhanced or natural, you need that base.
As an enhanced lifter the exogenous hormones will go a long long way towards helping you nuold that strength, regardless of how you train. There is research showing this, even sedentary people who are given testosterone get stronger by doing nothing. Larry wheels has alluded to this as well saying you can literally get good at powerlifitng by just swallow a Magic pill.
So enhanced people will get strong by virtue of their enhancement regardless of hoe they train. Natties won't. They have to train in a way that is optimally conducive towards building that strength base, without the help of magic pills. If they can succeed in doing so then, imo, they will be capable of achieving all the hypertrophy they desire.
But the point stands that that strength base is an underlying requirement either way, it's just easier to get it when you're enhanced.
So... I'm enhanced (but I only use testosterone, but NOT TRT, I actually blast 1g test from time to time), and I tried many training methods, many, but copying what you natural guys do gave me the best results of my life, both in strength and size, so I only follow training advice from nattys like NH, you, Bald Omni man, GVS, and AlphaDestiny mostly, thats what worked the best and keeps working every time, so I'll keep doing that, keeps me without the need of uping the dosage or using poisonous mindfucking shit like tren (never again, never)
I feel the exact same way. I run less than 1g/week when I do a cycle. Always keep the dose and compounds pretty mild. I too need to train as if I’m natural otherwise I don’t get great progress. My first couple cycles I was able to get away with ‘enhanced training’ but I found I couldn’t continue doing that and make gainz. I had to start following actual programs
If I were to up the dose or add in new drugs then I could get away again with fluff and pump but there’s definitely a spectrum to not being natty. And I don’t think it’s fair to make it so black and white
Really speaks against the new fad of downplaying the dosages needed to get Instagram or ifbb bodies. As noble as the intention may be, lying about how much they're taking is as bad as lying about not needing drugs at all
I'm glad that you acknowledged that you are injecting test instead of saying you are on "TRT". I see idiots who are injecting 500mg, 600mg, or even 1g of test and they still have the audacity to say "it's just TRT bro".
Wouldnt the reason that tennis players and swimmers dont hypertrophy be that they dont work their muscles close enough to failure? you know, 1-4 reps or less in reserve.
Bodybuilders might not have the best one rep maxes but they normally have some crazy strength endurance and work capacity. All advanced bodybuilders can rep relatively heavy loads for reps.
Where do you rank yourself amongst the strongest tennis players of all time?
Hahaha irrelevant when you consider the fact that I am the lowest rank player to ever pick up a racquet.
I am enjoying this Noble Natty trend and hope it becomes a mainstay.
Figured I would do my bit. Glad you enjoyed!
We need a t shirt.
Some channel is claiming my lifts are using fake plates, spot anything suspicious? Oh yeah and they also claim that there is no way I am a 500 lb deadlifter
ua-cam.com/video/IP_7s-F_xZo/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/dZ7zGj-bKn8/v-deo.html
Another great video man. For as intelligent as Mike I don't understand how he actually believes Dough Miller is natural lol.
You've said that enchanced people cant train in different ways, but isn't that just the case of them getting good results because of steroids, and if they programmed/trained like natural lifters, they would get more gains?
The only thing I never understood about the ‘pump work’ nomenclature is who the hell Doesn’t get a pump in the gym?
Guys that lift predominantly in the 6 reps or lower range like myself. I rarely if ever get a pump in that rep range like I do when work out in the 8-12 hypertrophy rep range (which I hardly train in at the moment).
The pump isn’t as maximal in the 5-6 rep range as 8-12, but I’ve never felt devoid of a pump. I guess that’s why the term ‘pump work’ always confused me
I dont think that with pump work he means that you should never up the weight tho
Dude needs to stay in his lane. The guy he uses as an example of a natural lifter looks like slightly smaller Jay Cutler.
Tennis racket analogy is on point.
Who's the guy with the back tattoos in the thumbnail ? Is it you Alec ?
Doug is only natural if he has the freakiest myostatin deficiency in the world
I think he said "within the 5-30 rep range", so the examples of tennis, swimming, etc, don't really disprove his point.
I don't agree with him either though. I've tried lifting exclusively using 20 reps for everything and I actually lost size quickly. I don't think a natural can benefit much on very high reps (over 15).
Agree with all of you've said except I didn't lose gains at 15_22 rep range actually I've gained some but it's suboptimal around 80%.
They are a blend of metabolite/pump work of varying styles and even have elements of power mixed in. Actually, tennis is probably the best example of all because each point lasts for about 10-30 seconds...you rally 10-20 times (reps), rest for a few seconds and then do it again. And you do that 2-3 hours at a time. The only difference is the intensity is slightly lower and the velocity is higher as compared to bodybuilding work. There are actually many similarities to the techniques he discusses though.
I agree with your first point but definetely not the second.
@@BuJammy you are not in a small group. Getting stronger in the 20 rep range builds pretty much the same amount of muscle as lower rep range. Its about preference and efficiency. And of course if you want to be better at 1rm then you need to train it separatley but all strength is still strength no matter the rep range.
@@joojotin getting stronger at 20 reps does build the same amount of muscle, no doubt...possibly even more when compared to 10 reps or less, for example.
However, the gains stagnate very quickly and you hit a ceiling because you are not able to build strength like that long term wheh using high reps in isolation. That is why lower rep work, 10 reps or less, is also going to be important. It spurs the strength gains on for a longer period of time and the 2 methods feed off of each other. They are symbiotic and complementary. This is literally the exact point I have tried to make in my last 2 videos but somehow people aren't gettingng it.
Hey Alec, what is your take on hyperplasia. Came across some random fat guy on the internet, who says it is the only proper way to train for gaining real strength and size. It is supposedly done through many sets for about 10 reps. Sounds like bullshit to me. Anyone can share their opinion if you want, I would appreciate it.
I don't know much about hyperplasia, but I do know that doing "many sets of 10" if quite often a waste of time. Personally, I tend to ignore the advice of fat guys on the internet when it comes to fitness.
@@EnkiriElite thank you for the response, man. Yes,in my experience it is stupid ,yet it still sounded kind of interesting that you supposedly can build new muscle fibers that your body didn't have before. I guess this method is a scam, still thanks for your time.
Mike does encourage strength training. I think he's more saying that an inclusion of pump training alongside strength focused routines is the best of both worlds. I think this, in part, because of his other videos. The one you're critiquing probably doesn't clarify everything in the way that it should.
His video on using the pump to moderate volume is strange to me. I don't really get a pump in certain muscles very easily. If I specifically choose exercises and rep ranges that encourage it, I no longer am prioritising strength. And that's where I disagree with Mike, and it's pretty much what you're saying as well. Strength should always take precedence. If there's room for pump training, great, include it. But it should not ideally be a primary focus because it limits long-term progression. Strength allows for the use of metabolite training to be effective, so by sacrificing strength for the pump, you're hamstringing your more optimal pump training.
My rule for myself has always been: Never more then 5 rep on deadlift and back squats and between 12-15 reps on smaller movements like a bicepcurl. I don't think anyone is doing 3 rep bicepcurls out there, right? Doing 30 reps on anything is cardio, not muscle training.
If you have never gone above 5 reps on compounds you're missing out on some decent work capacity and hypertrophy gains.
@@jdata true, even Alec has done sets of 30+ with over 3 plates on squats and his legs are jacked as fuck.
yeah thats just called being lazy unless you like doing a ton of sets or are training hardcore for strength, even then, you are limiting hypertrophy.
1-jacked-arm racket sport gang represent
I started test like a year ago but I had been lifting naturally since I was 15 and I'm 32. I don't see the point in the natural or enhanced debate personally because a lot of people in my gym don't even have programming. I get excited when people are actually strong or progressing. And if I can hide people up by lifting something I'm happy about it. I don't go encouraging people to pin hopefully I'm encouraging them to keep going and get stronger. It makes me sad there's only a handful of people in my commercial gym that are actually strong and most of them are women. Which is cool I'm always like good job but a lot of people are just taking up space and dicking around. No progression they're just there to play like it's recess. And then people are like I wonder why I'm not getting stronger? Smh. People could do a hell of a lot naturally but they need a plan.
You're preaching to the choir man! I sell programs for a living lol, and I fully agree with you that most people need a better one...if I didn't then that would mean I didn't believe in my own product! And yeah, that's the funny part about dicking around in the gym...why go to a gym just to "exercise" without any sort of direction? If you just want to mess around why not go and do it outside in the fresh air?
Before you judge others, realize that you are a junky. They may be re recreational lifters that are not meeting your standards, but they will most likely live a longer life than you, and not be dependent on a substance to function normally. They could very easily judge you back for pinning for no real good reason, besides vanity?
@@JoshBenware comparing me to a drug addict is stupid. A lot of people are lazy a lot of people can do better it's not about whether or not I'm taking testosterone it's the truth. You're like those people that go to church on Sunday so that they can judge each other throughout the week. People can try harder natural or enhanced period. I love the gym I've been doing it since I was 15 and I have a minor physical disability so if anything I'm enhancing my quality of life if it makes you feel better to look down on me when everyone's on the machines on their phones good for you bud. You can't tell me most people in the gym couldn't benefit from a program or they couldn't try a little harder. If Alec himself can agree with me you can just suck a fat one. Go jerk off natural hypertrophy.
@@EnkiriElite exactly man like I love it I got really decently strong but my friend he had really good genetics and we were Auto regulating for years we were doing push pull legs but we didn't have structure so the past like 5 years I've been doing strong lifts and I got stronger because I had a plan. Sometimes I have to wait like 30 minutes for a bench and I would be done in less than 10 minutes. It's frustrating but I'm not out here telling people like yeah I'm on testosterone I want to get people hyped up and excited for progress.
@@alterdestiny1 you're the one judging with a needle hanging out your butt 🤣😅
get them 🔥
Greg Doucette - We're all circles.
Enkiri - Humans are rectangle.
Me - 🤨
Are you doing anything for your neck? Looking big
Doug Miller? Natty? LOL
Algo comment for supraphysiological natty strength gains
Thanks for the algo gains!
@@EnkiriElite anytime brotha! Always appreciate the content!
17:45 no. We're circles 😂
What I would say is that Dr Mike doesn’t preach that just doing pump work exclusively will get you jacked. He even states in almost every over video that you need to be getting stronger over time in a variety of rep ranges. You can’t just add volume or slower eccentrics etc you need to get stronger. He just doesn’t necessarily believe that sets below 5reps are massively hypertrophic, which is fair. Also, if you check out some of the top legit drug free bodybuilders (AJ Morris) for example, he is legitimately strong. Bloke squats 180kg for 18 reps, and pulls 220kg for 8+. So although he does a lot of machine and isolation work he’s genuinely strong as fuck for a natural at the big movements so.
This is unrelated but that is an interesting strength discrepancy! Squatting 180kg for 18 is HUGE. Pulling 220 for 8 is....considerably less huge. Very interesting. My guess is this (never heard of him) built his base with free weights before transitioning much more so into machine work.
And that's really the thing. Many of the guys who did that seem to leave that part out of the equation for some reason. "Well here's what I do *now*" Ok but what you did for the first 5-10 years may have been even more important lol.
I'll be honest, I can't remember what I actually said in this video. But I remember from the comments that there was a misunderstanding between a term I was using and what people were taking that to mean. I say this because you mention the 5 rep thing, which is something I agree with. If hypertrophy was the only goal I'm not sure I would EVER have somebody go below 5 reps.
@@EnkiriElite I agree, his squat is mental and you’re definitely right. What people do prior to ‘build their base’ as it were is definitely highly correlated with their size potential. I think people just get caught up in the naturals need to get stronger argument and take that as everyone basically needs to be a competitive powerlifter. When Infact even natural bodybuilders and such agree that getting stronger and moving more weight in the bar/machine/db etc overtime is paramount, just perhaps in a larger rep range. Great video as always anyway mate!
Dr. Mike offers no science to back his conjectures. He begins by noting research on metabolite training on natties which did not involve enhanced lifters which means no inferences of the differences between the two can be drawn. He then ulimately suggests over focusing on pump training is bad for groups which means that the intially cited research must have shown that pump training's results are very good. This is basically Coach Greg without the screaming.
Ive noticed this with a huge % of Mike's content. It borders on scientism without actual references. He either should do more deep dives with specific studies like MASS reviews do, or rebrand as a rhetoric based channel, rather than science. His pain science content is similar. It's rational with certain basic assumptions, but not literature based.
what is the definition of strength, metabolite work and pump work? it's not clear to me
"Strength work" was being used as a pretty loose term here....I was just using it a quick way to describe pretty much any type of work done in the 5-10 rep range on a big compound exercise (squat, bench, deadlift, ohp, chinup, dip, etc etc) and with a focus on increasing the loading slowly over time within that rep range.
Pump/metabolite work is going to refer to higher rep stuff where the focus is less on the load being used or even on moving the weight, and more so on "contracting the muscle" and making it tired through a high volume of work. 20+ reps per set.
I use both of these methods in my own training to varying extents.
@@EnkiriElite so the tennis comparison is quite meaningless no? there is a major difference between hundreds (thousands?) of reps which are further from failure and "high rep" work which is maximum 40 reps. not only that you are also keeping the load the same.
@@naorovadia1161 no, not really. You rally in tennis 10-20 times per point, you take a very short rest, and then you do it again. And you repeat that for several hours. The loading is lower, but the velocity is higher. The similarities are actually quite high, and so are the results that typically occur.
@@EnkiriElite 5:12 in metabolite /pump work you CAN use a "heavier racket" so when does that ceiling come into play?
@@naorovadia1161 when you find it, which is going to be very quickly because that type of work does not actually make you stronger in any significant fashion
Mike replied to my comment on this video asking how I know Doug Miller is enhanced... Uhmmmm, my eyes?
Hahaha I think I saw that. I am honestly not sure if Mike is trolling us with that one or not....but it wouldn't make sense for him to use an example he didn't truly believe was natty because then he would be disproving his own point. As much as I respect the man, he has some clear biases and insecurities that present themselves when he is talking about PED usage.
@@EnkiriElite my response was something along the lines of “I don’t really know anything, I just apply Occam’s razor”. Yeah he’s a knowledgeable man who can teach plenty of people real principles of hypertrophy but we all have biases
I thought you where supposed to gradually go up in weight and intensity with pump style training. Your also still meant to go to failure with pump style training. However pump training by itself will have its limitations because it’s more difficult to drive progressing with just pump style training.
The problem with fluff and pump is that it generally never reaches the optimal percentage of orm to actually induce hypertrophy over time. The load is too light after a certain point.
@@BasedChadman there is evidence that pump style training like BFR dose have muscle building benefits but it should be supplemental to a proper training program.
Honestly, I don't give a flying fuck about research, knowledge is ultimately experiential when it comes to training because there are way to many different individual factors. In my experience, light weight high volume isolation work (machine and cable focused) is the reason why there are naturals at the gym who, after a decade of training, look like they started lifting yesterday and then bullshit like "bad genetics" start trending. I only started gaining muscle when I dropped that shit and started focusing on calisthenics and weighted calisthenics, two of the fastest ways to get very strong, interestingly enough. Now I'm combing very frequent heavy barbell lifting old school strongman style (inspired by Hackenschmidt and Saxon) with cali and weighted cali, that combination is giving me the best gains of my short life and I'm glad I found out about it when I'm still very young (21). No one in my family is particularly jacked so I trust it's way more about the right type of hard work than it is about genetics. I don't need a research to tell me that a training style invented by enhanced athletes for enhanced athletes will never be as good for me as the training style naturals have been using throughout history (heavy lifting + gymnastics), critical thinking is enough.
Total agree man. I have always felt that literature regarding recreational training is somewhat of a pointless endeavor. Sure, study precise methodology for sport so that Russia or China or the US can try to snag a few more gold medals at the Olympics (but even that's a crapshoot honestly). But in terms of literature for gen. pop training...what are we really even learning?
@@EnkiriElite Even precise methodology for high level competitive sports usually boils down to how can we accommodate intensity and frequency with performance, basically how to work hard a lot without being half dead when the time to perform comes and the old timers knew how to do that. They practiced many different lifts and they practiced pretty much everyday. A heavy deadlift session yesterday was too exhausting? Instead of resting today just train one hand deadlifts and let your back take a break from super heavy loads.
There’s just no way someone can convince me that you don’t need to be or get stronger as a natty to get jacked. Someone with only a 225 bench isn’t gonna have a barrel chest. And someone who can squat 405 for 10 isn’t gonna have chicken legs. This is just what I’ve seen from actual natural lifters.
Yep, getting stronger is the hard part. It's easy to pump away on set after set of easy isolation work.
Commenting for the algo-rythm 💃
This gon be good.
Pump sets are boring. I don't do that kind of training because i don't like to get bored at the gym. I don't care about ir they work😅
Cosby: Did u say puddin'?
I had a nice comment. Then I got distracted and I'm not gonna retype it 😡
But ❤️ in the comments
Haha well I appreciate you leaving some love anyway!
Does this make you Captain Natty?
Hahah na, I think that title goes to Bald Omni Man.
@@EnkiriElite You’re a humble man
I don’t know why this is such a big discussion has anyone thought maybe just train the exercises that give you a pump and try to add weight over time
I view some of Israetel's content, he's got some good info and he's a smart guy. But he's not natty yet speaks so cavalier about natty training compared to enhanced. When you watch his training videos it's nothing more than causing massive fatigue to obviously enhanced lifters through 3 or 4 different movements with multiple failure sets. Nothing new here been done for ages. As a natty, this style of training will bury you after a few weeks.
Yeah his practical training advice is not very good. Which is funny because he gained the vast majority of his size by simply getting super strong. He use to overhead press 225 for like 10 reps lol.
@@Soccasteve Actually 275x8. Also his general guidelines are pretty good.
@@ProphetFear that's massive!
@@ProphetFear Haha even better
His videos at the end of training blocks which he REPEATEDLY SAYS IS NOT HOW HE USUALLY TRAINS? Goddamn dude, no matter how easily digestible people make the content there are people who just don't pay attention.
Mike Israetel et al. (Renaissance Periodization) are a national treasure to anyone interested in sports science and body composition management.
He has good info but is very dogmatic
💪
juu
@@ollvi joo
@@joojotin kyä näin o
@@ollvi joo näi sen on oltava
@@joojotin ollaan siitä samaa mieltä
Cyclists do have fkn huge quads
Also Dough Miller aka Drug Miller
Yeah, I'm honestly a little baffled at Mike using the Doug example. Shows me he is a little bit out of touch with the realities of "unenhanced" lifting.
Between this and recently perpetuating the 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight myth, it looks like Dr. Mike has been doing a little bit of trolling as of late. Doug is obviously a genetic powerhouse and has worked hard to get to where he is now, but naturally? Come on now...
I thought the same thing about the Doug Miller example, but I cannot understand why he would do that because it explicitly disproves the point he was trying to make there in that example lol. But who knows, maybe he has some elaborate ruse going on behind the scenes!
It's obvious he's very intelligent but he doesn't give very good practical training advice.
Isn't it all rectangles are squares but not all squares are rectangles? 🐔
No, because a rectangle can either be square or not. So all squares are rectangles...but not all rectangles are squares.
just as big, if not bigger than you and ive literally never trained for strength. still managed to pull 455 on deadlift and squat 405 tho…i think your reeaally over estimating the importance of strength for hypertrophy here man
Cool. Relative frame size is kind of the most important at factor that you're not considering. I was 115lbs before I started lifting weights.
@@EnkiriElite i was obese and then anorexic before i started. and I am speaking relatively not raw magnitude. either way thats not the point. the natural obsession with strength training to build muscle is just not true. even on just a surface level, hypertrophy is a structural adaptation, strength is largely neurological. strength comes and goes with training. there is no reason to believe (and quite frankly its a huge logical leap) to assume training for 1rms is going to benefit you when trying to build muscle
@@saudibonesawexpert8937 you are absolutely correct. Training for 1rm's has no place in pure hypertrophic training. I went out of my way to illustrate that that is not a concept I am referring to when talking about strength training for muscle gain...so I'm not sure what to tell ya other than listen more closely to what I am actually saying, not what you want me to be saying.
@@EnkiriElite so what do you define as a “strength base” ?
As a huge mike fan i cringe when he keeps referecing doug as natural!
I don’t understand the notion that we need a base of strength to build muscle whether we are natty or not. First off, how are we defining a base of strength? Also, I’m pretty sure beginners can gain decent muscle from doing a wide spectrum of rep ranges (6-15) without solely working on strength. Is there something I’m missing?
Yes, you are missing the fact that "strength work" was only very loosely defined in Mike's video and was basically being used as a term to describe any compound exercise done in any rep range from basically 5-15 with a focus in adding weight to the bar over time. Whereas pump work was loosely defined as isolation exercises done for 20+ reps. No one said anything about needing to go below 6 reps evem
@@EnkiriElite okay got it. Then I would agree with you. I think what causes confusion is a lack of specific definitions. I don’t know why he would define ‘pump work’ as going above 20 reps when we can get a pump from any rep range. I think pump work is more specific to using lower rest periods and the increase in metabolic accumulation from that
@@alexwright5954 I think it highly depends on the situation..but it can certainly be easier in many instances to get the targeted pump you are looking for with isolation exercises and high reps..he repeatedly referred in his video to the concept of even going up to sets of 30 where "pump/metabolic work" was concerned. So I ran with that. I was in no way suggesting that anyone who's sole goal is muscular hypertrophy ever needs to do an exercise for
I really like Dr Mike, and think he’s a good source of information generally. However - in this video he’s either being extremely ignorant, or extremely dishonest, and I can’t figure it out which it is
For being such a smart guy it's pretty mind boggling that he actually thinks Doug is natural. He give good advice and obviously knows a lot but his general training advice of progressing volume and reducing RIR over the weeks is pretty bad practical training advice.