Honestly I've trained on and off inconsistently for quite a few years and ive settled with upper / lower 2× a week... Hitting everything HARD once a week. as a busy dad of 3 and a physical job i don't care about "optimal" or whatever the latest science says... I've been making steady consistent progress and I'm perfectly happy with that, the most important thing for me is knowing i can stick to it.
Some of that also comes down to ability to recover. Physical job, family life (especially depending on the age of children) and such does most definitely affect ability to recover. I’ve also got three children (twins born a month and a half ago) and although they truly are great… them waking up once a night most definitely has a massive effect on sleep quality and sleep time. I also have a physical job. Here lately I’ve honestly just been going to the gym twice a week (before I had 4-6 day routines) with an upper/lower and if I get any more days than that’s great but if not then it’s fine too. I’m recovering well enough and I’m still most definitely making gains even as an advanced training age lifter. The things people need to remember with all of the “science based lifting” is that when they actually give you percentages based on research of most things… the “optimal” often times only results around 8-12% additional results over a wide variety of topics. Most of the time with having additional training days people will either not hit certain muscles at all or when they’re the secondary on that day (upper chest vs lower chest for an example)… the work they’re doing on the secondary is minimally hypertrophic in comparison to the primary in which they overload it on the other training day. The training is intentionally blunted in some aspects to make way for another day of training. Oh, also the last caveat is what “low volume” even means. Many “low volume” people have sets comparable to normal but their warm-ups are more intense which makes them sets that just aren’t counted. In the opposite aspects, many people who tout “high volume” do not actually do anything someone on the outside in would call high volume. If you want Dr. Mike post his workout on Instagram, almost all the time you will be like “that is it?” Same deal if you want people like Nick Walker, Chris Bumstead, Derek Lunsford and most other Olympia level athletes. You see their workouts and it’s a handful of exercises done for 3-4 sets of 10-20 reps… which is just completely normal and average and a far cry from any video you here them talking about “high volume” up to 52 sets per muscle group with high reps and yada yada yada.
@amorfati4927 sounds very similar to me we had twins.. they are 2 now, still very channeling juggling it all but they are pretty much sleeping through now thank goodness... It's been rough at times! Our eldest is 5. Yes honestly with very little time and energy to train at times I'm happy with minimal effective dose training... And to be honest I'm quite sceptical about most studies there's just so much variability and nuance. I have definitely suffered from paralysis from analysis by overthinking just about everything, these days it's just do the work, train hard and try to improve each session. I was doing two full body workouts a week but I much prefer upper lower as I've got a bit more focus on things and a bit more energy. Congratulations with the twins
A bit of flare keeps things flowing, but this editing style is too much imo, so unfocused. Not entirely sure if it matches the main demographic of this channel.
Yeah this was one was somewhat over the top. The channel is still extremely young which means there's still a lot of trial and error before we nail the overall style etc
I love the mininum effective dose for the winter months when I am extra busy at work. Then the other 8-9 months a year i do much higher volumes. This channel has definitely made me feel better about taking that approach. It doesnt always have to be all or nothing.
The simple Mentzer Concept is that once a final set goes to failure, no more failure is needed for the biological trigger in that exercise. His workouts had volume and intensity in the warm up to that fail point, and even another set on a different machine for the same muscle group, with no reps in reserve, after the failure. Most people seem to forget how much time and work would go into the design of a workout plan to KNOW the loads and rep counts for warm up and final set that ends on a failure and finisher set loading to end with no reps in reserve, so a ton of lifting went before to prepare the body for these failure triggers. Also, for experiments like this one, we need to consider the 9 days between each workout for target muscle group, 3 days between each target group, meaning 2 days rest between each workout day.
I do a single superset 8 exercise workout, all super Omega high intensity, single rep max no warm up, finish in under 2 minutes and grow faster than all those idiot nonbelievers.
Not even sure what point this video is trying to make. Congrats on the cool research but if you include all kinds of talking points that have nothing to do with it just to be able to have a clickbait title you lose the real audience. Or maybe that was never the people you wanted to reach?
I am thankful for you being up to date with the research. My issue with the videos is that you could go a lot easier on the editing and it would ultimately be for the benefit of the message.
It seems mocking a dead man is low hanging fruit for fitfluencers nowadays. Of course Mike got many things wrong. But don’t forget he often talked he tailored his program for normal people who didn’t use any gear and didn’t wanna spend too much time in gym. He was a counterculture where before him people spend hours in gym as championed by Arnie and his Weider gangs. The more Pak trolled and mocked Mentzer the more respect he would lose i bet. Just like Israetel
That's great to know that close to failure 2 RIR 9 set per week is both comparable to failure training and as a minimum effective dose can make you progress, not just maintain. I love how peak UA-cam this is, the spirit animal celebrity drama has nothing to do with any thing, nothing makes sense, the text is good but the font is intentionally illegible, the transitions "back to the video" go to more nonsense. If people complain about this they need to realize what platform they're on, this is fine art and it took me 5 tries and reading the comments to actually get through.
Dr Pak. I don't want to seem rude, but I just don't get it. Dr Wolf sent out an email in Sept saying Myoadapt would be released in Dec 2024. I get it. Things get pushed back to fix bugs. However, we would appreciate an update on a new potential release date. Thanks.
Not rude at all - we had a few important bugs that needed addressing before closed beta and we’re currently hoping to be ready for launch in the next 2-3 months. We’ll be posting a proper update soon. We appreciate your patience ❤️
@Dr__PakIn the meantime to keep us busy before the release; once in a short or video Big Daddy Dr Milo Wolf told us to keep guessing his ethnic background, today my guess is South Macedonia, previously it was Greek and Turkish German. Are we encouraged to do the same thing for you?
4:07 i really gotta look into what these studies keep calling "appreciable" gains. "Appreciable" gains are like 15lbs of muscle (it takes 50lbs just to look like you lift) If the gains are visually indistinguashable from a pump then thats not appreciable, that's fluff.
I think that once we started (as a community) viewing strength gains and hypertrophy gains differently, the concept of if the "weights go up every time then you are growing close to maximally" should have been buried. If I deload I'm stronger next week. No shit sherlock. All mentzer preached was deload and strength will go up
Hey subscriber to your channel. Does the minimum effective dose pertaining to older men in their 50's.I saw few studies that older men need more volume. Wait for your answer thanks
I was just about to say the same thing! Yet another click bait misleading UA-cam title. I guess Dr. Pak figures everyone is doing it. The one thing that puzzles me is how Dr. Pak can say that, no Mike Mentzer wasn't right, when they didn't test Mentzer's protocol. But maybe that was buried somewhere in this annoying, silly video.
@Dr__Pak I wasn't aware people were saying that. I agree that that would be a dumb thing to take away from the study. But it might have been helpful if you had stated that the study doesn't prove Mentzer was right AND it also doesn't prove he was wrong, because it didn't study his protocol. You could even have inserted a snarky remark to the effect that not everything is about Mike Mentzer, which would have been a nice dig at the Mentzer cultists. Maybe those insights are somewhere in the video. Frankly, with all the cross-cutting and jokiness, I found the video pretty had to follow.
When I started to meditate I would use the mantra Bud-dho when inhaling and exhaling. But today I use Ment-zer, because we know that he was the real Buddha
These studies are most of the time relatively short, few weeks or month. What about training low volume vs. high volume over years, didn’t both reach genetic maximum just in different times/speeds? Maybe Mentzer is just be misinterpreted : )
This editing is too brainrotted bro. Just take one talking point at a time PLEASE. I can tell your editors put a ton of time into this, but less is more.
die tto the tiktok style of over editing in this vid im not even sure what I just watched? Something about pain for PR's, mike mentzer and a dancing santa?
At this point u don't you even know fundemtals of muscle growth. i'll make explaination so basic that 5 yr old would be able to understand. Muscles are adaptive biological systems. They grow in response to stress that exceeds their current capabilities, a principle known as progressive overload. At the core of this process is muscle fiber recruitment, protein synthesis, and the central nervous system aka cns, all of which rely on efficient energy systems to function. This stress is applied through resistance training, which induces microtrauma in the muscle fibers. But here's the first critical distinction: not all stress leads to growth. Muscle fibers are recruited based on the size principle: smaller, weaker motor units are activated first, followed by larger, more powerful ones (type IIb fibers) as the demand for force increases. These type IIb fibers have the greatest potential for hypertrophy. When you engage in high-intensity weightlifting, you force your muscles to contract with maximum effort, creating mechanical tension that causes microtrauma to the fibers. This damage triggers the release of satellite cells, which fuse to the muscle fibers to repair and grow them, but this process is energetically expensive. The body draws upon adenosine triphosphate aka atp, the primary energy molecule, for both muscle contraction and the repair process. During intense sets, phosphocreatine is rapidly utilized to regenerate atp for short bursts of effort, however the bodys capacity for atp resynthesis is limited and becomes depleted with continued high-intensity exertion. This is where adaptive energy resources come in i.e glycogen, fat, and protein become crucial to fuel continued training and repair. Now The cns determines which and how many motor units are activated. At low intensities, only smaller, weaker motor units are recruited. At maximum intensity, the cns fires up the largest, strongest motor units, including the type llb fibers critical for growth. So, what happens when you leave a rep "in the tank"? You simply fail to recruit the maximum number of motor units, particularly the type IIb fibers, which are the ones that grow. This is why training to failure is not just beneficial; it’s essential for muscle growth. Without reaching that point, you’re doing less work for less growth. When you're performing 12 reps per set, especially for four sets, your cns is being overstimulated by volume and understimulated by intensity. You're not achieving the maximum recruitment of motor units. The type IIb fibers, the ones responsible for significant growth, are barely being tapped because the weight isn’t heavy enough to force their activation. You’re unnecessarily taxing your peripheral nervous system with repeated submaximal effort, leaving you fatigued without producing the stimulus necessary for hypertrophy. Now for mechanical testion bs, people mistake tension for simply moving a heavy weight or performing endless reps without understanding the intensity required to make it effective, without maximum intensity, you’re only activating the weaker type I fibers and some intermediate fibers. This is why lifting light weights for high reps under the guise of “mechanical tension” is a joke. Mechanical tension means nothing without proper cns engagement. The cns determines the force output of your muscles by recruiting the necessary motor units. If you’re lifting submaximal loads, your cns won’t fully engage the largest motor units. In essence, you’re leaving your most powerful fibers dormant.
There's a difference between training for strength and hypertrophy. Training to failure is not necessary for strength but is essential for hypertrophy. Study [1] conclusions: The dose-response relationship between proximity to failure and strength gain appears to differ from the relationship with muscle hypertrophy, with only the latter being meaningfully influenced by RIR. Strength gains were similar across a wide range of RIR, while muscle hypertrophy improves as sets are terminated closer to failure. Considering the RIR estimation procedures used, however, the exact relationship between RIR and muscle hypertrophy and strength remains unclear. Researchers and practitioners should be aware that optimal proximity to failure may differ between strength and muscle hypertrophy outcomes, but caution is warranted when interpreting the present analysis due to its exploratory nature. Future studies deliberately designed to explore the continuous nature of the dose-response effects of proximity to failure in large samples should be considered. Reference [1] Robinson, Z.P., Pelland, J.C., Remmert, J.F. et al. Exploring the Dose-Response Relationship Between Estimated Resistance Training Proximity to Failure, Strength Gain, and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Series of Meta-Regressions. Sports Med 54, 2209-2231 (2024). doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02069-2
@@ElkhanPeysakhov What you’ve provided is yet another overcomplication of what is fundamentally simple, and this pseudo-academic analysis only demonstrates the scientific community’s tendency to muddy the waters with endless theorizing and failure to recognize first principles. I’ll address this directly: the distinction between strength and hypertrophy training, the supposed necessity of training to failure for hypertrophy, and the absurd obsession with repetitions in reserve. Hypertrophy occurs when Type II muscle fibers, the largest and strongest fibers in your body, are recruited and overloaded to the point of failure. Training to failure isn’t just a preference for hypertrophy; it’s a requirement if you want to maximize it. Strength, on the other hand, is the expression of force production. While maximal strength doesn’t necessitate frequent failure in training, it still demands the progressive recruitment of motor units that occurs only when the muscle is sufficiently challenged. Hypertrophy, unlike strength, is directly tied to mechanical tension and the degree of fiber recruitment, especially of Type II fibers. These fibers are only recruited under conditions of extreme effort, which is precisely why training to failure is the most efficient means of achieving hypertrophy. Let me make this clear: the closer you are to failure, the more motor units you recruit, and the greater the tension placed on the muscle fibers that are responsible for growth. Stopping two, three, or even one rep short of failure compromises this recruitment. Anything less than failure is suboptimal. The nonsense about "RIR" is a distraction. You don’t need a convoluted scale of "proximity to failure" to determine how hard you’re training. If you’re not training to the point where your muscles literally cannot complete another repetition, you’re wasting time. The body does not respond to arbitrary numbers of sets and reps or theoretical RIR calculations. It responds to intense, targeted effort that brings the muscle to its limit. The central nervous system governs the recruitment of motor units. During any given lift, motor units are recruited in a hierarchical manner, starting with smaller, low-threshold units and progressing to larger, high-threshold units as the demand for force increases. When you train to failure, the cns is forced to recruit every available motor unit, including those high-threshold units that are primarily responsible for hypertrophy. Without reaching failure, you leave these motor units untapped, and your results are compromised. This is why submaximal training volumes, even with many sets, fail to deliver the same level of hypertrophy as one all-out set to failure.
@@ElkhanPeysakhov Furthermore, the process of adaptive energy allocation, the bodys use of its finite resources to repair and rebuild tissue is maximized when the muscle is placed under extreme, concentrated stress. Spreading effort across multiple sets (as these "rip" proponents suggest) leads to energy dispersion, not the focused stimulus required for optimal growth. These "future studies" they mention won’t yield anything new because the answer has been evident for decades. The only way to maximize hypertrophy is to train with intensity to the point of failure. Anything else is mental masturbation for researchers who’ve likely never experienced a proper high-intensity workout in their lives.
Furthermore, the process of adaptive energy allocation the bodys use of its finite resources to repair and rebuild tissue is maximized when the muscle is placed under extreme, concentrated stress. Spreading effort across multiple sets (as these "rip" proponents suggest) leads to energy dispersion, not the focused stimulus required for optimal growth. These "future studies" they mention won’t yield anything new because the answer has been evident for decades. The only way to maximize hypertrophy is to train with intensity to the point of failure. Anything else is mental masturbation for researchers who’ve likely never experienced a proper high-intensity workout in their lives
@Anthony-forever-mma My comment was in response to high intensity training. In the context of resistance exercise, it refers to strength training (high intensity, low volume). Hypertrophy training is the opposite (low(er) intensity, high(er) volume). Intensity is % of 1RM i.e. load. Unless you define intensity differently, high intensity or strength training is suboptimal mode of training for hypertrophy. Greater muscle fatigue or TIT is a key driver of hypertrophy. Strength is CNS adaptation that leads to more efficient use of muscle contractions.
Be present to the point at which you are stimulating growth at a genetic level. e.g., via Intensity. Volume is NOT the factor. Lifestyle 'love' {false virtue fake manly signaling} projected and competed over - not it. Fetishizing detail? lol. Quantity? nope. It is well timed Intensity. Quality elegant effective unparalleled: Intensity. What Mentzer would call a warm up set most moderns would call working. Be present to the point at which u go hard, thereafter - and do it like your life depends on it. ONCE - per muscle. NO ONE grows - and looks like they lift - w/o embodying this praxis. [for long, anyhow] To keep the baby intact and please both parties: You are both right. [the details misinterpreted, because one may be going with zeitgeist and 'brand' association {meme-like semiotics} of MM over that of what he actually said - aside] Happy New Year, Doc & team. i luv u
![What Are People Wearing in New York? | Starlinc [Ep.64]](/img/n.gif)
Whenever a video has a silly clickbait question in the title, the answer to that question is always no.
Same thing with these questions in the media.
@@nicholasfevelo3041Is YOUR computer giving you radiation poisoning?!?!?!
Honestly I've trained on and off inconsistently for quite a few years and ive settled with upper / lower 2× a week... Hitting everything HARD once a week. as a busy dad of 3 and a physical job i don't care about "optimal" or whatever the latest science says... I've been making steady consistent progress and I'm perfectly happy with that, the most important thing for me is knowing i can stick to it.
Some of that also comes down to ability to recover.
Physical job, family life (especially depending on the age of children) and such does most definitely affect ability to recover.
I’ve also got three children (twins born a month and a half ago) and although they truly are great… them waking up once a night most definitely has a massive effect on sleep quality and sleep time. I also have a physical job.
Here lately I’ve honestly just been going to the gym twice a week (before I had 4-6 day routines) with an upper/lower and if I get any more days than that’s great but if not then it’s fine too. I’m recovering well enough and I’m still most definitely making gains even as an advanced training age lifter.
The things people need to remember with all of the “science based lifting” is that when they actually give you percentages based on research of most things… the “optimal” often times only results around 8-12% additional results over a wide variety of topics. Most of the time with having additional training days people will either not hit certain muscles at all or when they’re the secondary on that day (upper chest vs lower chest for an example)… the work they’re doing on the secondary is minimally hypertrophic in comparison to the primary in which they overload it on the other training day.
The training is intentionally blunted in some aspects to make way for another day of training.
Oh, also the last caveat is what “low volume” even means. Many “low volume” people have sets comparable to normal but their warm-ups are more intense which makes them sets that just aren’t counted. In the opposite aspects, many people who tout “high volume” do not actually do anything someone on the outside in would call high volume. If you want Dr. Mike post his workout on Instagram, almost all the time you will be like “that is it?” Same deal if you want people like Nick Walker, Chris Bumstead, Derek Lunsford and most other Olympia level athletes. You see their workouts and it’s a handful of exercises done for 3-4 sets of 10-20 reps… which is just completely normal and average and a far cry from any video you here them talking about “high volume” up to 52 sets per muscle group with high reps and yada yada yada.
@amorfati4927 sounds very similar to me we had twins.. they are 2 now, still very channeling juggling it all but they are pretty much sleeping through now thank goodness... It's been rough at times! Our eldest is 5.
Yes honestly with very little time and energy to train at times I'm happy with minimal effective dose training... And to be honest I'm quite sceptical about most studies there's just so much variability and nuance. I have definitely suffered from paralysis from analysis by overthinking just about everything, these days it's just do the work, train hard and try to improve each session.
I was doing two full body workouts a week but I much prefer upper lower as I've got a bit more focus on things and a bit more energy.
Congratulations with the twins
I’m in the same boat.
Nope.
A bit of flare keeps things flowing, but this editing style is too much imo, so unfocused. Not entirely sure if it matches the main demographic of this channel.
I was about to post something simlar before I saw your comment. Let's hope this is a one off for the New Year, this video was all over the place.
I dunno I kinda like it
Yeah this was one was somewhat over the top. The channel is still extremely young which means there's still a lot of trial and error before we nail the overall style etc
the problem wasn’t the editing it was the fact nothing was given through it. we just got 1.5m of some shitty edit 😭
first 90 seconds was fun… then the adhd was too much to handle… this has to be for the younger demographic
No idea what was said in this vid at all, what on earth happened producing this one?!
Low volume but high intensity for muscle group done twice or more a week can be very effective though.
Nope.
I love the mininum effective dose for the winter months when I am extra busy at work. Then the other 8-9 months a year i do much higher volumes. This channel has definitely made me feel better about taking that approach. It doesnt always have to be all or nothing.
The simple Mentzer Concept is that once a final set goes to failure, no more failure is needed for the biological trigger in that exercise. His workouts had volume and intensity in the warm up to that fail point, and even another set on a different machine for the same muscle group, with no reps in reserve, after the failure. Most people seem to forget how much time and work would go into the design of a workout plan to KNOW the loads and rep counts for warm up and final set that ends on a failure and finisher set loading to end with no reps in reserve, so a ton of lifting went before to prepare the body for these failure triggers. Also, for experiments like this one, we need to consider the 9 days between each workout for target muscle group, 3 days between each target group, meaning 2 days rest between each workout day.
We know hit doesn't work. It's been debunked decades ago.
I do a single superset 8 exercise workout, all super Omega high intensity, single rep max no warm up, finish in under 2 minutes and grow faster than all those idiot nonbelievers.
Content starts at 1:45
new study proves when myoadapt will launch
Mate this video is impossible to watch. So many changes and none sense. Get a good cámara guy or ask Mylo for help.
the shenanigans (or he-nanigans) at 05:50 is the fire content the fitness industry needs lmao
You didn’t even study what Mentzer preached. This is a nothing burger
Not even sure what point this video is trying to make. Congrats on the cool research but if you include all kinds of talking points that have nothing to do with it just to be able to have a clickbait title you lose the real audience.
Or maybe that was never the people you wanted to reach?
I am thankful for you being up to date with the research. My issue with the videos is that you could go a lot easier on the editing and it would ultimately be for the benefit of the message.
Mike was right but very few are on his muscule size so they cannot get it all in 1 set for each exercise. Just do 2 or 3 but reach close to: failure.
Im not sure what substances Pak took during the nye party. But they still seem to be working. Nice.
😂😂😂 those anatomy photos are gonna need a lawyer.
They're just diagrams.
@RonaldMcPaul Oh good 😥 I thought we had all just witnessed a crime!
When is myoadapt coming out huh? My wallet is about to bust and needs to be emptied asap
Classic case of new entrepreneurs being overly optimistic on project timelines/getting hit by setbacks. I'm still optimistic about it but not shocked.
@@TheGreektrojanMaybe he should implement a high intensity product development program.
It should be opened to beta testers.
It seems mocking a dead man is low hanging fruit for fitfluencers nowadays. Of course Mike got many things wrong. But don’t forget he often talked he tailored his program for normal people who didn’t use any gear and didn’t wanna spend too much time in gym. He was a counterculture where before him people spend hours in gym as championed by Arnie and his Weider gangs. The more Pak trolled and mocked Mentzer the more respect he would lose i bet. Just like Israetel
Your editor is getting the real workout putting all these clips together.
This video to messy
Great edition 👏🏼👏🏼
That's great to know that close to failure 2 RIR 9 set per week is both comparable to failure training and as a minimum effective dose can make you progress, not just maintain.
I love how peak UA-cam this is, the spirit animal celebrity drama has nothing to do with any thing, nothing makes sense, the text is good but the font is intentionally illegible, the transitions "back to the video" go to more nonsense. If people complain about this they need to realize what platform they're on, this is fine art and it took me 5 tries and reading the comments to actually get through.
It would be interesting a next experiment where in comparison a lot more RIR, it would show which minimum effective dose as base.
Dr Pak. I don't want to seem rude, but I just don't get it. Dr Wolf sent out an email in Sept saying Myoadapt would be released in Dec 2024. I get it. Things get pushed back to fix bugs. However, we would appreciate an update on a new potential release date. Thanks.
Not rude at all - we had a few important bugs that needed addressing before closed beta and we’re currently hoping to be ready for launch in the next 2-3 months. We’ll be posting a proper update soon. We appreciate your patience ❤️
@Dr__PakThank you for the response. I (and I'm sure others as well) appreciate it.
@Dr__PakIn the meantime to keep us busy before the release; once in a short or video Big Daddy Dr Milo Wolf told us to keep guessing his ethnic background, today my guess is South Macedonia, previously it was Greek and Turkish German. Are we encouraged to do the same thing for you?
Flappy new year to you too!
So Mentzer was right. Cool!
What if, now hear me out guys, both Arnold and Mike are too extreme in their positions. Find your MAV and ride that till stagnation and make changes?
Fantastic intro
Thanks for giving me ADHD Dr. Pak
i love this editing looool dont stop it
Unbearable editing.
4:07 i really gotta look into what these studies keep calling "appreciable" gains. "Appreciable" gains are like 15lbs of muscle (it takes 50lbs just to look like you lift)
If the gains are visually indistinguashable from a pump then thats not appreciable, that's fluff.
"detectable gains" be like:
My man just spent 5min sh!t!ng on Mike Mentzer🤣
Bro the production quality is wild on this one
My question is why are pak videos full of love comments but wolfs videos get packed full of hate comments? It’s really bad
I think that once we started (as a community) viewing strength gains and hypertrophy gains differently, the concept of if the "weights go up every time then you are growing close to maximally" should have been buried.
If I deload I'm stronger next week. No shit sherlock. All mentzer preached was deload and strength will go up
Hey subscriber to your channel. Does the minimum effective dose pertaining to older men in their 50's.I saw few studies that older men need more volume. Wait for your answer thanks
Can you repeat the study with high volumes? I’m curious whether doing high volumes AND every set to failure can do compared to the control
so this has nothing to do with anything Mike Mentzer said
I was just about to say the same thing! Yet another click bait misleading UA-cam title. I guess Dr. Pak figures everyone is doing it. The one thing that puzzles me is how Dr. Pak can say that, no Mike Mentzer wasn't right, when they didn't test Mentzer's protocol. But maybe that was buried somewhere in this annoying, silly video.
@@adamsloane1748 People used this study to claim that Mike Mentzer was right. Just look at the comments on IG on our meme.
@Dr__Pak I wasn't aware people were saying that. I agree that that would be a dumb thing to take away from the study. But it might have been helpful if you had stated that the study doesn't prove Mentzer was right AND it also doesn't prove he was wrong, because it didn't study his protocol. You could even have inserted a snarky remark to the effect that not everything is about Mike Mentzer, which would have been a nice dig at the Mentzer cultists. Maybe those insights are somewhere in the video. Frankly, with all the cross-cutting and jokiness, I found the video pretty had to follow.
Everybody tells mentzer was wrong, nobody know how to train H.I.T. properly.
Mentzer once said that if you train a muscle hard enough you may need two months off lmfao
video doesnt respect the watchers time
When I started to meditate I would use the mantra Bud-dho when inhaling and exhaling. But today I use Ment-zer, because we know that he was the real Buddha
did I miss the part where he corrected Mike? I must have got lost in all the edits and effects
These studies are most of the time relatively short, few weeks or month.
What about training low volume vs. high volume over years, didn’t both reach genetic maximum just in different times/speeds?
Maybe Mentzer is just be misinterpreted : )
Does we have or when we will get study where compared volume vs intensity for ex: 4 sets @0RIR or 8 sets @2RIR?
Bro comedy gold 🤣 💪
n=40, including control group. "science based" moment
bro why would you put a loading bar in your intro, I clicked off I don't want to fake load your video man time is money
New script writer? Nailing it.
5:53-5:55 makes the video for me
I had to quit the vid can’t follow this
Me too... I'm like, wtf am I watching
Agree. I just clicked the link to the actual study in the description. No need to go through the video.
finally seeing Fluff make a return
5:51. Highlight of the video, Creepy Uncle Pak
Dude dont you ever respond to comments? Especially to a fellow Greek
Mike Mentzer was right all along
Proves that gear will trash your heart, liver, and prostate? I also heard of that study.
Myoadapt would be the best in the world if it ever was released.
That was too much TikTok-Influence for me in the editing 😂.
Did you start the video with...γράφουμε? Or I got it wrong????
What the heck is going on @5:45 😂
6:37 All Eyez on U
One study cannot prove anything in science. Clickbait.
This editing is too brainrotted bro. Just take one talking point at a time PLEASE. I can tell your editors put a ton of time into this, but less is more.
Proves that meth is bad? I also heard of that study.
Substantial =/= optimal. Right, got it.
great
“Dese viewer” haha been listening to the Mentzer teachings for sure lol
Total click bait title. Im here for it.
You must be new here
homeboy thats a lot of stuff on the screen chill a bit
The editing makes me dizzy and want to puke. Bro…
Η έρευνα έγινε με αγυμναστους ή προπονημενους ;
Trained participants
Are you greek mate?
All Influencers are Greek to me.
I can't follow this. Brain is broken.
Has no one thought about how bad the majority of people are at judging their own RIR when doing these studies.
We literally assessed that in the study too. Prediction accuracy was fine
die tto the tiktok style of over editing in this vid im not even sure what I just watched? Something about pain for PR's, mike mentzer and a dancing santa?
At this point u don't you even know fundemtals of muscle growth. i'll make explaination so basic that 5 yr old would be able to understand. Muscles are adaptive biological systems. They grow in response to stress that exceeds their current capabilities, a principle known as progressive overload. At the core of this process is muscle fiber recruitment, protein synthesis, and the central nervous system aka cns, all of which rely on efficient energy systems to function. This stress is applied through resistance training, which induces microtrauma in the muscle fibers. But here's the first critical distinction: not all stress leads to growth. Muscle fibers are recruited based on the size principle: smaller, weaker motor units are activated first, followed by larger, more powerful ones (type IIb fibers) as the demand for force increases. These type IIb fibers have the greatest potential for hypertrophy. When you engage in high-intensity weightlifting, you force your muscles to contract with maximum effort, creating mechanical tension that causes microtrauma to the fibers. This damage triggers the release of satellite cells, which fuse to the muscle fibers to repair and grow them, but this process is energetically expensive. The body draws upon adenosine triphosphate aka atp, the primary energy molecule, for both muscle contraction and the repair process. During intense sets, phosphocreatine is rapidly utilized to regenerate atp for short bursts of effort, however the bodys capacity for atp resynthesis is limited and becomes depleted with continued high-intensity exertion. This is where adaptive energy resources come in i.e glycogen, fat, and protein become crucial to fuel continued training and repair. Now The cns determines which and how many motor units are activated. At low intensities, only smaller, weaker motor units are recruited. At maximum intensity, the cns fires up the largest, strongest motor units, including the type llb fibers critical for growth. So, what happens when you leave a rep "in the tank"? You simply fail to recruit the maximum number of motor units, particularly the type IIb fibers, which are the ones that grow. This is why training to failure is not just beneficial; it’s essential for muscle growth. Without reaching that point, you’re doing less work for less growth. When you're performing 12 reps per set, especially for four sets, your cns is being overstimulated by volume and understimulated by intensity. You're not achieving the maximum recruitment of motor units.
The type IIb fibers, the ones responsible for significant growth, are barely being tapped because the weight isn’t heavy enough to force their activation. You’re unnecessarily taxing your peripheral nervous system with repeated submaximal effort, leaving you fatigued without producing the stimulus necessary for hypertrophy. Now for mechanical testion bs, people mistake tension for simply moving a heavy weight or performing endless reps without understanding the intensity required to make it effective, without maximum intensity, you’re only activating the weaker type I fibers and some intermediate fibers. This is why lifting light weights for high reps under the guise of “mechanical tension” is a joke. Mechanical tension means nothing without proper cns engagement. The cns determines the force output of your muscles by recruiting the necessary motor units. If you’re lifting submaximal loads, your cns won’t fully engage the largest motor units. In essence, you’re leaving your most powerful fibers dormant.
There's a difference between training for strength and hypertrophy. Training to failure is not necessary for strength but is essential for hypertrophy.
Study [1] conclusions: The dose-response relationship between proximity to failure and strength
gain appears to differ from the relationship with muscle hypertrophy, with only the latter being
meaningfully influenced by RIR. Strength gains were similar across a wide range of RIR, while
muscle hypertrophy improves as sets are terminated closer to failure. Considering the RIR
estimation procedures used, however, the exact relationship between RIR and muscle
hypertrophy and strength remains unclear. Researchers and practitioners should be aware
that optimal proximity to failure may differ between strength and muscle hypertrophy
outcomes, but caution is warranted when interpreting the present analysis due to its
exploratory nature. Future studies deliberately designed to explore the continuous nature of
the dose-response effects of proximity to failure in large samples should be considered.
Reference
[1] Robinson, Z.P., Pelland, J.C., Remmert, J.F. et al. Exploring the Dose-Response Relationship Between Estimated Resistance Training Proximity to Failure, Strength Gain, and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Series of Meta-Regressions. Sports Med 54, 2209-2231 (2024). doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02069-2
@@ElkhanPeysakhov What you’ve provided is yet another overcomplication of what is fundamentally simple, and this pseudo-academic analysis only demonstrates the scientific community’s tendency to muddy the waters with endless theorizing and failure to recognize first principles. I’ll address this directly: the distinction between strength and hypertrophy training, the supposed necessity of training to failure for hypertrophy, and the absurd obsession with repetitions in reserve. Hypertrophy occurs when Type II muscle fibers, the largest and strongest fibers in your body, are recruited and overloaded to the point of failure. Training to failure isn’t just a preference for hypertrophy; it’s a requirement if you want to maximize it. Strength, on the other hand, is the expression of force production. While maximal strength doesn’t necessitate frequent failure in training, it still demands the progressive recruitment of motor units that occurs only when the muscle is sufficiently challenged. Hypertrophy, unlike strength, is directly tied to mechanical tension and the degree of fiber recruitment, especially of Type II fibers. These fibers are only recruited under conditions of extreme effort, which is precisely why training to failure is the most efficient means of achieving hypertrophy. Let me make this clear: the closer you are to failure, the more motor units you recruit, and the greater the tension placed on the muscle fibers that are responsible for growth. Stopping two, three, or even one rep short of failure compromises this recruitment. Anything less than failure is suboptimal. The nonsense about "RIR" is a distraction. You don’t need a convoluted scale of "proximity to failure" to determine how hard you’re training. If you’re not training to the point where your muscles literally cannot complete another repetition, you’re wasting time. The body does not respond to arbitrary numbers of sets and reps or theoretical RIR calculations. It responds to intense, targeted effort that brings the muscle to its limit. The central nervous system governs the recruitment of motor units. During any given lift, motor units are recruited in a hierarchical manner, starting with smaller, low-threshold units and progressing to larger, high-threshold units as the demand for force increases. When you train to failure, the cns is forced to recruit every available motor unit, including those high-threshold units that are primarily responsible for hypertrophy. Without reaching failure, you leave these motor units untapped, and your results are compromised. This is why submaximal training volumes, even with many sets, fail to deliver the same level of hypertrophy as one all-out set to failure.
@@ElkhanPeysakhov Furthermore, the process of adaptive energy allocation, the bodys use of its finite resources to repair and rebuild tissue is maximized when the muscle is placed under extreme, concentrated stress. Spreading effort across multiple sets (as these "rip" proponents suggest) leads to energy dispersion, not the focused stimulus required for optimal growth. These "future studies" they mention won’t yield anything new because the answer has been evident for decades. The only way to maximize hypertrophy is to train with intensity to the point of failure. Anything else is mental masturbation for researchers who’ve likely never experienced a proper high-intensity workout in their lives.
Furthermore, the process of adaptive energy allocation the bodys use of its finite resources to repair and rebuild tissue is maximized when the muscle is placed under extreme, concentrated stress. Spreading effort across multiple sets (as these "rip" proponents suggest) leads to energy dispersion, not the focused stimulus required for optimal growth. These "future studies" they mention won’t yield anything new because the answer has been evident for decades. The only way to maximize hypertrophy is to train with intensity to the point of failure. Anything else is mental masturbation for researchers who’ve likely never experienced a proper high-intensity workout in their lives
@Anthony-forever-mma My comment was in response to high intensity training. In the context of resistance exercise, it refers to strength training (high intensity, low volume). Hypertrophy training is the opposite (low(er) intensity, high(er) volume). Intensity is % of 1RM i.e. load. Unless you define intensity differently, high intensity or strength training is suboptimal mode of training for hypertrophy. Greater muscle fatigue or TIT is a key driver of hypertrophy. Strength is CNS adaptation that leads to more efficient use of muscle contractions.
grafoume????
That intro was impressive! Your editing is on fire!
Great clickbait 🎉
Nope.
Μετα το επεισόδιο με το σαμαρά σε εχουνε πιασει οι καυλες σου για τρολαρισμα😂
and another study will be released a month later saying the opposite..
science has no place in hypertrophy, unless it's BROscience..
Θέλουμε και σε ελληνικά 😂
So Milo and Pak are both Greek??
@@RonaldMcPaul I don't think that Milo is greek but I love him 🤣
#ADHD
The biggest thing of his advices was, one set of all was enough and that was prooven wrong.
Of course his “one set” had a handful of warm ups that were more intense than most people’s working sets
My ADD liked this video😂
Be present to the point at which you are stimulating growth at a genetic level.
e.g., via Intensity.
Volume is NOT the factor. Lifestyle 'love' {false virtue fake manly signaling} projected and competed over - not it. Fetishizing detail? lol. Quantity? nope. It is well timed Intensity. Quality elegant effective unparalleled: Intensity. What Mentzer would call a warm up set most moderns would call working. Be present to the point at which u go hard, thereafter - and do it like your life depends on it. ONCE - per muscle. NO ONE grows - and looks like they lift - w/o embodying this praxis. [for long, anyhow]
To keep the baby intact and please both parties: You are both right. [the details misinterpreted, because one may be going with zeitgeist and 'brand' association {meme-like semiotics} of MM over that of what he actually said - aside]
Happy New Year, Doc & team.
i luv u
give some of your drugs pls