142: The Volume Debate w/ Lyle Mcdonald & Mike Israetel
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 вер 2024
- It is finally here!
Lyle & Mike get into a highly anticipated debate about the '45 Set Study' by Brad Schoenfeld. Furthermore, they get into a discussion about general volume recommendations, intensity, study designs and much more.
Timestamps:
02:14 Lyle starts off with his take on the "Volume Study"
05:58 Mike response to Lyle's first critique on doing a blinded study
10:37 Lyle & Mike get into a discussion about Brad's study design and its conclusion
16:25 Lyle starts bringing up his second point of critique, that the study didn't support the conclusion
19:46 Lyle & Mike are moving on to the next point, which is the critique about statistics of the study
24:17 Mike's take on the criticism Lyle brought up about there being no statistical significance because the P-value doesn't support the dose-response claim
25:17 Lyle brings up the p-value and Bayesian method to refute the conclusion
29:38 Mike talks about statistical methodologies, limitations and is by that, responding to Lyle's points. Further, he brings up the question of 'why to put that much stock into one study?'
36:03 Lyle replies to Mike's point and asks him if Mike feels the statistics support the conclusion
42:08 Lyle & Mike get into a discussion around limitations in studies in exercise science
44:42 Both move on talking about frequency about training
47:52 Lyle brings up differences in data and why studies haven't addressed those
51:32 Mike addresses the data differences between studies such as Schoenfeld vs. Ostrowski
58:26 Mike brings up criticism to the Ostrowski study
01:03:21 Mike starts with stating his viewpoints
01:07:25 Mike response to Lyle's question about the rationale for Mike's volume landmark
01:11:45 Lyle shares his take on Mike's volume recommendation and asks for Mike to elaborate on intensity recommendations
01:18:59 Lyle speaks about his take on intensity recommendations
01:24:25 Both get back into a general discussion around volume recommendations for different body parts
01:30:19 Lyle brings up a good question if getting stronger becomes a detriment
01:34:36 Lyle talks about different volume recommendations for different populations
Discussed Studies and links:
Schoenfeld et al: www.ncbi.nlm.n...
Radaelli et al: www.ncbi.nlm.n...
Haun et al: www.frontiersi...
Ostrowski: journals.lww.c...
bodyrecomposit...
weightology.ne...
weightology.ne...
www.facebook.c...
bodyrecomposit...
/ the_schoenfeld_volume_...
Thanks, please comment, like and subscribe!
COACHING: revivestronger....
WEBSITE: www.revivestron...
FACEBOOK: / revivestronger
TWITTER: / revivestronger
INSTAGRAM: / revivestronger
NEWSLETTER: bit.ly/2rRONG5
__
Stay up to date with the latest research!
MASS (Research Review):
• goo.gl/c7FSJD
RP+ Membership:
• ob262.isrefer....
__
Books we recommend!
Muscle & Strength Pyramids
• goo.gl/S8s6tG
RP Books
• bit.ly/2vREaH0
RP + Members site
• ob262.isrefer....
For more
• revivestronger....
__
Recommended supplements:
Denovo Nutrition (use code STEVE)
• denovosupps.com?aff=6
__
When you're interested in online coaching, please go visit our website and follow the application form:
www.revivestron...
Timestamps:
02:14 Lyle starts off with his take on the "Volume Study"
05:58 Mike response to Lyle's first critique on doing a blinded study
10:37 Lyle & Mike get into a discussion about Brad's study design and its conclusion
16:25 Lyle starts bringing up his second point of critique, that the study didn't support the conclusion
19:46 Lyle & Mike are moving on to the next point, which is the critique about statistics of the study
24:17 Mike's take on the criticism Lyle brought up about there being no statistical significance because the P-value doesn't support the dose-response claim
25:17 Lyle brings up the p-value and Bayesian method to refute the conclusion
29:38 Mike talks about statistical methodologies, limitations and is by that, responding to Lyle's points. Further, he brings up the question of 'why to put that much stock into one study?'
36:03 Lyle replies to Mike's point and asks him if Mike feels the statistics support the conclusion
42:08 Lyle & Mike get into a discussion around limitations in studies in exercise science
44:42 Both move on talking about frequency about training
47:52 Lyle brings up differences in data and why studies haven't addressed those
51:32 Mike addresses the data differences between studies such as Schoenfeld vs. Ostrowski
58:26 Mike brings up criticism to the Ostrowski study
01:03:21 Mike starts with stating his viewpoints
01:07:25 Mike response to Lyle's question about the rationale for Mike's volume landmark
01:11:45 Lyle shares his take on Mike's volume recommendation and asks for Mike to elaborate on intensity recommendations
01:18:59 Lyle speaks about his take on intensity recommendations
01:24:25 Both get back into a general discussion around volume recommendations for different body parts
01:30:19 Lyle brings up a good question if getting stronger becomes a detriment
01:34:36 Lyle talks about different volume recommendations for different populations
IN SHORT: A KNOWLEDGE BOMB 🔥
Using Bayesian principles just between the 3 set and 5 set is kinda missing the boat here. 5 sets isn't that different from 3 sets so the difference might be slight. Compare between the larger differences. You might not have enough of a statistical change between 5 and 3, but do have it between 45 and 15 for instance. And if you see a consistent trend between each step of volume that is very significant. The probability that all of the steps are due to random probabilities will be much lower than just one step.
@Daniel - When talking about low volume (3-5 sets), 2 sets do make a significant difference. The example of 5 sets is only 1 set away from doubling the ammount. Okay, the difference would be a lot more significant when talking about high volumes (45-70 sets), but not everyone has the stamina, nor the time/willingness to do this. So I think why Lyle brought this up was because the Bayesian principles are useful to everyone. Both novices ánd advanced trainees.
@@icejumperke As you know many more advanced trainees will barely grow on 5 sets as well as three so the difference might be tiny here. I think using the statistics like Lyle did here is disingenuous, he sorta implies that the larger conclusion is dependent on this probability he sets fourth but it doesn't.
@Daniel - I hope you mean “forth”?
Yeah, I see where you’re coming from.. I can’t say I grow from 5 sets either.. 5 sets is even below my “MEV”. I’m not defending Lyle, I’m just saying that I can see that 5 sets is “high volume” when compared to 2 sets. 45 sets however is a whole other animal. I do follow you in thinking that Lyle didn’t have to bring up the Bayesian principles, since they don’t really apply to this discussion a whole lot when talking about intermediate/advanced trainees.
I came for two things: a good discussion and the classic camera angle from Mike. I know I will not be disappointed in either. Let the debate begin!
The crotch-shot
- Pascal
HAHAHA fucking iconic
Steve have to say you are a legend for getting these two guys on here. Fair play to your work ethic and vibe.
Thanks! I took one for the team. Lyle hates me now, he made that very clear but if that was what was needed, I take it.
- Pascal
@@ReviveStronger If I may ask, I dont mean to be impolite but I wonder, why does Lyle hate you now?
@@ReviveStronger You're kidding! I'm reading Lyle's blog post about it now and the only thing he said about you was you were fair and let those two have at it.
I received two messages in which he made that very clear. Before the debate and after
- Pascal
@@NopeNope78 because he thinks that I'm an asshole for forwarding his post, which was directed at Brad, Eric, Mike, Greg and James. I mean, if someone talks about you and critising you, it's only fair that you know about it and can take a stance.
He basically accuses me of causing high school drama which given the facts, is simply not true. You're an adult. If you're critising or posting something, especially a prominent figure like him, you'll have to be an adult and be aware of potential consequences. He was only seeking for someone to blame but the only one who is to blame is himself.
The ommission of the middle data on the O paper is a valid critique.
To say it was ‘technically’ acurate because of 0.1 is just avoiding the actual issue that Lyle is bringing up
The primary difference between Lyle and Mike for the first hour seemed to be that Lyle was talking more 'micro' around the 45 set study specifically and it's flaws/potential room for improvement, whereas Mike was looking more at the 'macro' approach and how this study compares and fits within the landscape of the hypertrophy/volume research as a whole.
We need people like Lyle because he makes science better, he's great at zooming in on the minutiae and his attention to detail is amazing. We also need folks like Mike because he's incredible at taking massive amounts of knowledge/data/trends and distilling them down into practical ways to implement this stuff.
Take home - 10 working sets per body part per week is a solid place for most people to start. Is it going to be right for you? Maybe, maybe not, but much like assessing maintenance calorie intake we have formulas to get us 'in the ballpark' but you're going to have to scale up or down based on your genetics, circumstances, lifestyle, training etc.
Basically, we need to work together instead of bashing each others head
- Pascal
Love your observations! I completely agree with you.
Haha yup that would be ideal! @@ReviveStronger
Thanks :) @@powerliftingpremedcrafter473
Marcus Sidhu hey, 10 sets meaning 10 sets for legs or 10 sets quads 10 sets glutes 10 sets hams and 10 sets calves ?
I have an sports science degree, and I have to say that this is university level material for sure. Props to Mike and Lyle for having a respectful academic discussion and of course massive thanks to both Steve and Pascal for making this happen. I love these discussions as they help contextualise the data and learn how to properly interpret science. Cheers!
Thanks a lot MDrummer. Always good seeing you around :)
- pascal
I am extremely disappointed, confused and surprised that Brad wasnt blinded to whom he was doing measurements on. I'm not questioning his ethics, but this sounds a lot like scivation doing their own BCAA research.
Well said youth
Thanks old.
It's like Mike said as well, it would have been best if that was the case. Can't deny that
- Pascal
Practical considerations don't always allow this
It's pretty clear brads study was designed to show a certain result and did not find that result.
The greatest podcast to date!
In summary:
They agree that the study was weak, but Mike believes that Lyle has gone on an unnecessary personal vendetta against this study.
Lyle took the time to understand and respect Mike's training principles.
It seems that Lyle was shocked that the previous pettiness between the two is kind of unnecessary. Especially, when you take into account that Mike respects Lyle and holds no real animosity...
Yes, I honestly thought they left and moved forward with getting along. Unfortunately, it turned out that Lyle hasn't...
- Pascal
Mike has admitting to thinking Lyle is an "asshole" on this very podcast series
Would lyle even disagree with the notion that he's a giant asshole?
I have achieved the point in my years that the more detailed the conversation the more I am intrigued
Very good. Thanks.
You're very welcome, thanks for watching!
- Coach Jess
Very civil debate, props to both, treated each other very well. When it comes to Lyles critique of the Schoenfeld study Mike really was beating around the bush with very weak arguments mainly being "there are a lot of other studies that are trash too". So as expected no real answer on the critique points. When it comes to volume recommendations both mainly agree, just consider different groups of the population. So actually this was kind a waste of time and went as predicted. Only positive thing was how these two guys got along. They could so well be friends.
His argument was that Lyle loves to quote studies with similarly dubious statistical quality if it supports his routines (and thus his wallet)...
You know Lyle doesn't sell programs, right? Most of his books don't even have training routines. Mike is the one who is part of a company that sells templates at $119 each, versus $27 for Lyle's Ultimate Diet 2.0 ebook which has training and nutrition. Yeah... Lyle is all about his wallet for sure.
I don't think it was. Cody Haun gathers a group of people to conduct a new study.
facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2709106472447753&set=pcb.2709106749114392&type=3&theater
They could be such good friends. It even seemed like they were towards the end...turned out though, they aren't after all
- Pascal
@@ReviveStronger They would! Especially because Mike is one of the few guys in this industry with CHARISMA (imo). I still think Lyle knew that Mike must have come to the same conclusion regarding this study (because IT IS NOT A WELL DONE ONE). So he expected Mike to say the study is "trash" and not dodging the critique only to not piss of BRAD and JAMES. I also think Lyle is really misunderstood here. His motivation is not arrogance, but rather a sense of justice. And he thought that BRAD is getting away with everything, because he is the leading or one of the leading scientists in this field. Same thing the metabolic damage debate with NORTON. It just made him mad that NORTON was gathering clients by fearmongering claiming there's something like metabolic DAMAGE. And damn NORTON lost that one. That the way he talks to people is often inappropriate is out of question. But it is the person's work you respect, not necessarily this person's civil manners. For me Lyle is just the one who contributed more than anyone to the field of sports science/nutrition. Cheers!
@@ks24pl97 totally understands what you mean and yeah, I agree that there were things that actually would have needed to been taken care of. Yesterday, Cody reached out and wants to gather people to replicate a similar study with minor adjustments. It's unfortunate that it's kind of necessary but at the same time, this is how science works, Ie. replicating study designs or similar ones to get a clearer picture. Again, just to clarify, I'd wished that some things would have been taken care of from the get-go.
Lyle got quite personal with me and still, I respect his work. I have my opinion when it comes to his behaviour and character traits but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate everything he has done in the past (what is it now?) 20 years or so.
Thanks for your support and comment Kristoffer!
Can't believe you guys got them both to agree to this debate! Very excited to see it unfold.
Didn't believe it until it was over
- Pascal
Keep up the great work, guys. Love the podcast and information you all provide.@@ReviveStronger
Thanks a lot :)
Loved it! Thank you so much to all involved. I’m glad that Lyle pushed this topic, because I do agree that the full weight of this study has been slightly exaggerated.
Thanks Brandon and I do agree, in the end, it is only one study
- Pascal
I was just thinking about the current state of the fitness/sports industry and this podcast literally 5 mins ago. Finally some intelligent more in-depth conversation. Inb4 I click play. Already liked.
Thanks so much for your support!
- Pascal
I agree with Lyle. Wording is very important when you're producing the results of a study. Especially if it's flawed and not as conclusive as Lyle suggests.
I don't care if he is a dick. I want facts. Lyle is the pitbull of the science-based fitness community, let him bark. We're all better off for it.
PS: Isratel dwarfed significantly halfway through the debate. Lyle won this one.
Thanks for the vote ;P
You're absolutely right, the wording is super important. First thing you're being taught as an undergrad
- Pascal
Nah. Lyle nit picks at EVERYTHING. Pretty much everyone understands what is being said in these types of situations but Lyle is always the one picking out the tiniest technicalities that support his own personal biases on any given topic. When confronted with real counter points to his own arguments by the way he often ignores them.
Mmmm Mike and Lyle truly make the ideal Valentine’s Day
Haha, wait for the end^^
- Pascal
*valentine's leg day
K I S S I N G
What did Lyle McDonald do to mike israetlels wife?
Lyle = GOAT.
Would type longer comment but I have to go do my 45th set of squats to failure for this week cause we know doctor Broenfeld told us it's optimal thing to do
Haha, it's funny because it's true!
- Pascal
Sorry forgot the 'not' in there
*dr Grownfeld
Chokwe i dont think he implied that. He could easily think brad has more expertise while at the same time (in this case) agreeing more with lyles points. Or just considering him the goat because he called out the studys conclusion.
Personally i prefer to focus on the persons argument rather than the certifications. Just sayin'
Come on guys, 4 hours in the gym! Let’s go back to the Arnold method!! ...let’s ignore how they were on steroids
Jordan Peterson vs Kathy Newman part 2
Lolz!
- Pascal
😂😂😂😂
Props for having Lyle on Steve I know it must've been stressful to try and be a great host.
Nah, Steve didn't need to do anything ;)
- Pascal
While lyle is't nearly as popular as mike, brad and others hé is a highly underrated source of knowledge in this industry.
Underrated? Nah, not at all tbh. He's been around since ages and everyone knows his name or him personally but agree, he's a great source!
- Pascal
@@ReviveStronger i agree with you but it seems that alot of People Just don't like lyle period!and choose the side of mike without question. like there is't even a side in the first place . That's like saying you don't train legs because you hate the leg press.... Lyle =science Just saying 😉
Lyles been around longer than most.
Also lyle doesnt expose himself as much in social media. Little to no networking too
DomogalaD, I absolutely agree, many people are going in biased but it's true the other way around as well
- Pascal
Overview of the first 1 hour : Mike and Lyle arguing over semantics. I think they're both right in most points they make and as usual they agree on most things. Great job Steve, been following your channel for quite some time now, keep up the good work.
Thanks Kristiyan!
Yeah, 'Sayre's law'...basically not uncommon, unfortunately :)
- Pascal
Fantastic that you made this debate happen. The only additional thing I would have liked to hear them talk about is their opposing views on volume when cutting. Israetel seems to be of the opinion that volume has to go up, while Lyle says that it could and should be lowered.
Ouw yeah, shit, that would have been good
- Pascal
This was more civil than I expected haha, great debate tho! No knockout blow, but a win for lyle on points maybe?
Maybe, it's like a good fight, the judges and audience have different perception who's the winner by points ;)
- Pascal
@@ReviveStronger yeah everyone can take their own take away and decisions from this, and like a good fight, you don't even notice the referee (Steve) because it's a good clean fight :) there's more respect than animosity between these two than they were letting on before this debate! Two pros!
@@ConorDuck yeeeepp!
When Lyle said that MI should be a "politician" he was so SPOT ON with that ! As for the 70 "working sets" per week that this woman supposedly does with Menno H I would like to see evidence/proof of this !!!??? As a HIT advocate/trainer of many years I can tell you that 3-5 sets is the most I do on a regular basis per body-part & 7-8 was the most I've done with "fun protocols" trying to do 100 reps , & I was looking for the door when I reached the 3rd to 4th sets LOL !
Mike Isratel's first response around the 7 minute mark is an insane display of intelligence. The sheer speed he was talking, coupled with how well thought out each word was additionally how it responded to a question posed only minutes before hand. Holy fuck what an academic. What an Inspiring gentleman.
I was quite impressed by the entire episode myself. A debate on a high level. No personal attacks but facts, data and interpretations
- Pascal
Aside from professionalism, it just shows Mike's thought about these topics and addressed them beforehand, even if only in solely prepping for this specific interview, which again comes to being professional, not about brains.
True!
@Khashon Haselrig lol.
They are going too far with the idolization
Don't put people on a pedestal.
This didn’t age well at all for this study or some of the extrapolations that were taken from this.
If anything, this study set us back in research a bit due to the methods and findings.
What do you mean? How did this study set the research back?
@@Darknight526 what kind of douchebag likes his own comment..
One of the best interview channels on the net. Please work on the sound. From Greece with love. An "old" trainer.
Thanks a lot!
We've improved the sound a lot. There are things though, that are outside of our control.
- Pascal
I’m a huge Mike fan, bought all his books, subscribed to RP Plus....
But he was dodging questions. I do wish he would have given more direct responses.
I perceived it differently but that's what debates have with them :)
- Pascal
It's a more high maintenance than any political debates. ;D Truly great idea and achievement to get them together. Thank you!
Good onya Lyle for taking it to 'those who seem to be beyond question', and onya Mike for being OK with having the conversation. Cheers Steve for providing the forum. The conversation came across as two voices of reason, becoming more and more interesting right up to the end.
Thanks Lloyd and yes, I found it quite pleasing to hear two intellectuals talk, instead of personal attacks and trash talk.
- Pascal
This is the only comment I will make on this since everything else I had to say is on my website.
When discussing the Ostrowski data, Mike asserts that Brad didn't have space to discuss it in more detail, that papers have a maximum word count. Brad made this same excuse. Nevermind that I was able to rewrite that section with less words and accurately represent the data.
This link will take you to the description of MSSEs requirements for manuscripts. Except for the title and abstract THERE IS NO WORD LIMIT.
Flatly: both Brad and Mike were lying about this being even ONE reason for Brad's actions. It's right there in black and white. NO WORD LIMIT on the manuscript. Take from what what you will. But that is an unquestionable lie.
edmgr.ovid.com/msse/accounts/ifauth.htm?fbclid=IwAR0oFaM89T3ItFffBIh1rl4h8W0rOp7KyPT6Np_BIqP8XTY7xFkbC7Lf-CI
Your dogmatic character assassination attempts only betray a nervous system chronically shaped by external and internal cues of survival threat. Flatly, you're paranoid.
Over on Facebook;
'Lucas:
Hey James, a little bit off topic but as you were an author on the paper you might know: is there really no word limit on MSSE?
James:
I have no idea regarding MSSE's specific editorial guidelines. I do know that I've experienced word count limits with other journals. I've also experienced pushback from reviewers in the past for results and discussion sections that are too lengthy, regardless of what the journal's limits may or may not be.'
m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156060141463587&id=605968586
It's a journal after all and it doesn't surprise me that reviewers can turn them down due to length. They sometimes do for more ridiculous reasons.
- Pascal
You lost this ome clearly! Your voice waa shakey and Mike was the superior intellect here haha. You was way to stuttery and have been sussed out. Imagine, I am someone you blocked on your facebook page for QUESTIONING if Caffiene is the way forward when all studdies show that the crash is assosiaed with a spike in cortisol that lasta potentially hours, there for possibly not being the best for testosterone production. I Also mentioned cortisol seems to have negative implications on immune system function and I was asking your thoughts. You replied in the rudest way, then blocked me. And someone on the group inboxed me saying 'tell me more, Lyle always advices caffiene drink and or caffiene pills' - so basically you blocked me because my queation 'went against what I didnt even kmow you had adviced' LOL so Mikes breakdown of why you are attacking this one article based on it disagreeing with your teaching ia even more clear LOL p.s you defo got schooled in this debate.
No one cares about you
Mike really had nothing to say about Lyle’s p value criticism. The argument ended there.
If you knew anything about how research is conducted or if you understood what a correlation is you would understand why Lyle’s p-value argument means nothing. A weak correlation is still a correlation
SQUAAAAAAAAAD WAS IMPATIENTLY WAITING FOR THIS 🔥!!! Can’t wait to hear what these two geniuses have to say 🙌 Thank you for making this happen Pascal and Steve! #BestPodcastOfTheCentury? 😂
Hahahaha, oooon it!
SQUUUAD duuuuuude strikes again!
This podcast is just on another level, bro. 🔥
You just feeeeeeel how they hate eachother, yet they stay very professional 👌
True professionals 👌
@@icejumperke this was exactly what I said to Steve. There's heat but still, they're battling each other with facts instead of personal attacks. Very pleasing to see that type of intellectual battle.
- Pascal
@@icejumperke #BestFanOfTheCentury??
I just opened UA-cam and saw this video suggested. Yep. This will be my viewing for cardio & meal prep today 👍💪👍💪😀🙏👀👀
Enjoy the long session ;)
- Pascal
When I see Mike & Lyle on the title, I immediately thought either it is clikckbait or it is going to be epic. Thanks for having the b*lls to do this. I did not expect to see them debate in my lifetime.
Pascal took one for the team.
Yep, I most certainly did xD
And I haven't expected that this is ever going to happen either.
- Pascal
Oh, it's on!!!
I wanna thank you guys for everything once again..and declare this the best podcast online!
Daniel, you know it, thanks as always
- Pascal
“Kowalski, Reddit analysis”
Hehehehehe
- Pascal
k
Lyle wins without “winning”, only because he’s right. Sorry Mike. I love 95% of mikes work btw. Although, Mike’s not “wrong”. They both are hyper focussed on different aspects of statistics and take different inferences away from that. Too bad they can’t consolidate they’re viewpoints and realize they’re both right but there’s a third factor that connects their points. That third factor is neural fatigue. Undulate that shit, Mike! 💪🏼
Hey you're allowed to have your opinion and share it without apologizing :) Thanks for watching!
- Coach Jess
@Old Skool Bodybuilding Routines for one, mikes on the juice. I’m not saying one is the king over the other or whatever. I’m just saying that I think sometimes mike gets a little caught up in trying to be “correct” that he paints himself into a corner. His views on a few things have changed significantly over the years. He now believes in increasing intensity over time to eventual sets to failure for advanced bodybuilders. He now conceded that most pros use a body part split and that there may be a reason for that
@Old Skool Bodybuilding Routines you’re asking a question that can’t be answered.
@Old Skool Bodybuilding Routines I personally don’t agree 100 percent with either. I got my own thing going and my results are satisfactory. I overlap the two approaches basically.
17:19, lmao@ Lyle's face when he realised how this guy just tap dances around a point
56:25
exactly what I came here for
OMG, I remember reading about the "triceps need more volume than biceps cause it's 3 heads vs 2." Just unlocked the memory of standing in front of the magazine rack in my the walgreens every day after school
Yeah, there have been quite some insane statements out there
"I'm open to liking you, Lyle"
Mike is brutally funny sometimes.
Haha, one of the best parts ;D
- Pascal
@@ReviveStronger yeah that was....a moment hahaha.
On a tangent, I'm pretty sure Mike talked about calves on one of your podcasts but there are so many of them I can't find it now. Any idea? Thx.
very often studies actually describe their limitations and what further steps might be taken to improve upon their methods and clarify their findings. so lyle is right about pretty much all of this in my opinion.
also i’ve heard the james krieger that lyle makes reference to and i think he does make a few small caveats.
Lyle is right for calling out that "one sentence" because the researchers placed it in a place where the majority of readers go to for advice
You talking about abstract warriors?
- Pascal
If you don't have sufficient educational background to read a study, including an introductory research methods and statistics course (or reading a textbook on it), you shouldn't be applying things from research. Especially if you've only read the abstract and haven't read the methods or limitations sections
@@ReviveStronger Look again how are you defending Mike isartel buddy. You are biased yourself !!
Very true. I have a sports science degree and I saw a lot of my peers in university go to this particular section of a study for advice. Mike Isaretel has a political aspect to this argument. That’s the main problem here. When it comes to muscle growth science. Everything has already been solved. Lyle McDonald has it down perfectly. He has for decades now. His advice is spot on. Scientific evidence is also a highly political field. I have heard horror stories from multiple people who became scientists. There are a lot of political problems. When it comes to this particular issue about this paper, Lyle is in the right and Mike Isaretel is in the wrong.
@@tntcheatscould you not argue that the reason we are asvised to read the whole study and critical examine their methods and results is because we can’t trust their conclusions? Hence Lyle’s whole point?
Oh my god. I've been confusing Lyle Mcdonald with Layne Norton this whole time
Lmao i always mix them both aswell
lol
It's well past midnight and I'm going to sleep now. But god damn, this is going to be a good watch tomorrow morning.
For those of you who might not have read the paper, that nice little bit that Lyle keeps quote comes from a greater part that @revive stronger nicely read out
"The present study shows that marked increases in strength can be attained by resistance-trained individuals with just three 13-min sessions per week, and that gains are similar to that achieved with a substantially greater time commitment when training in a moderate loading range (8-12 repetitions per set). This finding has important implications for those who are time-pressed, allowing the ability to get stronger in an efficient manner, and may help to promote greater exercise adherence in the general public. Alternatively, we show that increases in muscle hypertrophy follow a dose-response relationship, with increasingly greater gains achieved with higher training volumes. Thus, those seeking to maximize muscular growth need to allot a greater amount of weekly time to achieve this goal."
Taken in context it is clear that the "greater amount of weekly time" is in reference to the earlier 13 minute sessions.
AND!!!??? Why would three 13 min weekly sessions produce identical results or nearly so with regards to strength gains but not muscle-mass???!!! What valid supportive evidence is there that more volume/frequency of training producers more muscle-mass gains???!!! THERE IS NONE according to this paper!!! What Brad did was he "cherry picked" what he wanted & excluded what he didn't!!!
this is defitely sarcasm but its so progressed that I cant tell in which direction. Or which language. but you made me laugh thank you@@WizzdummHeadley
Great debate guys.
I think one cool option for an upcoming podcast would be Paulo Gentil. He is publishing great papers, trying to find the ideal dose of training for muscle hypertrophy.
Also Chris Beardsley's recent book on hypertrophy is excellent.
Chris Beardsley is doing a fantastic job!
- Pascal
@@ReviveStronger Indeed!
Lyle:"you should be a politician."
Me: "Super Sayian for Prez!!!"
Hahaha, yeeees
- Pascal
the U.S. would finally get fit with four years of that leadership! Thnxs for all you guys do... Love Love Love the channel.
@@gdambidextrous7721 Thanks for the support mate, without you, we're nothing!
- Pascal
Pretty intellectually dishonest (blatantly , even) of Mike to pretend to think that the lack of an increased response from 14-28 is just as elucidating as the presence of a response from 3 to 6 to 12. There’s no debate within the fitness community about whether or not 12 sets/week is preferential to 6, or if 6 is to 3. You can actually see him enjoy being a pedantic weasel.
...that is, almost as dishonest as pretending Brad didn’t intentionally omit Ostrowski’s middle set results.
listening to this has led me to believe i am nowhere near smart enough to keep up with all the data, so i am totaly lost, but sounded like some really great info.
I feel similarly. I’m not very well versed in statistics so a great majority of the stuff they’re saying doesn’t make any sense to me. I think this is important because most people don’t have the statistical know how to be commenting on a paper like this and discussing it like Mike and Lyle
@@asketillus8679There are lies, there are damn lies, then there are statistics!!!
My "advice" having been in this game for many years is to IGNORE this stuff as it will only serve to confuse you even more jus train sensibly/logically.
36:03 Lyle replies to Mike's point and asks him if Mike feels the statistics support the conclusion
Monumental event in the broader evidence based resistance training field. Great work all around, and to you too guys for putting it together, and Steve especially for the restraint in moderation and letting the talk take a natural flow. I would hope to see these two guys have another talk, not necessarilly a debate, maybe about nutrition.
Thanks a lot for your support :)
- Pascal
I would like to buy flowers for Mr.Hall for arranging this marvellous event. Absolutely fantastic.
Hehe, he'd love the flowers ;)
- Pascal
@@ReviveStronger You sir deserve a boquet aswell! Congratulations for becoming a dad for lil' Tony! Keep up the good work :)
O H S N A P
Steve the madlad finally did it
We made it happen. No one ever expected that anymore but it actually happened!
- Pascal
The absolute unit
It'd be interesting to see the results of the same study (sets of 10 reps at 60% 1 RM, ramping up to 128 sets in one week), but instead of 5 RIR, doing say 1 RIR which is around 68% 1 RM for most people. There'd be a load more quality reps and less "junk volume", so therefore the maximum recoverable volume would be expected to be less going closer to 1 RIR. Especially considering there are other studies showing that it's the amount of quality reps (above 5 RIR) per week that count.
Lyle is a god amongst men. Great episode!
Outstanding, thanks for the debate and post.
Thanks so much for listening
- Pascal
I love that you got these two together. But I hate that Lyle is so consumed with Brad's one study (at least 1/2 the debate). Wish they could've discussed other studies equally. These two (or other authors, doctors, experts) debating different aspects of training and nutrition on a monthly basis would be epic.
That'd be indeed epic!
Just so hard to make this work
- Pascal
Was this filmed 10 years ago or has Mike been on some L'oreal anti-aging cream?
Hahaha, right???
- Pascal
He’s dieting
@@davidthomas9960 Must be on the snake diet
Im currently walking round blackpool with my wife...saw this pop up and im wondering if i should fake stomach upset just to disappear and start watching the debate 😂
Blackpool is a shitdump. Leave immediately
Greg McGrath heh, i couldnt agree more pal, in fact several times during the trip round I said to my wife ‘seriously, they just need to flatten this place and start again its just depressing’ some nice people there though
17:20 Yo, that eye roll tho
Haha, yeah
This is the best video I have ever seen... talk about clash of the titans :)
Thanks Adam!!
- Pascal
With hindsight, Lyle was vindicated again.
Mike couldn't debate the main points, he's giving a lot of Jordan Peterson vibes on this debate.
Seems like the other way around
If you aren't invited to the revive stronger podcast you are not part of the fitness industry. No matter who you are, being on these podcast is a must!
Wow, thanks a tonne Lorenzo!
- Pascal
Let's see a Kali Muscle - Vshred debate.
There is no way someone can do 70 work sets for back a week and those are quality sets gtfo Mike.
I think you can if you don't do a whole lot of anything else haha.
- Coach Jess
Professionalism at its best, this is what I truly love about this debate. All the drama aside, great points and very clear ones even for an uneducated member of gen pop like me 😊
Yeps, absolutely my opinion
- Pascal
Mike’s huge yawn at 4:16 hahaha
Lol, haha, didn't even notice the first time xD
- Pascal
23:37
CG Hilarious! I totally caught his yawn and yawned myself :)
Mike finally faces someone worthy. Great debate
Thanks for tuning in!
- Pascal
Now THIS is worth staying up to listen to.
It indeed is!
- Pascal
Tfw repeatedly sneaking into the bathroom at work and listening to this in small segments
Hahahaha, that's the spirit!
- Pascal
I appreciate Lyle’s critique of the study, it’s important as good science must withstand rigorous scrutiny, but he did seem to take it a bit personally at times and the emotion took away from the ease with which an audience could objectively weigh his critiques against Mike’s counterargument. Mike was exceedingly chill (especially for a guy on steroids) and quite fair overall. A bit technical on methods for many I’m sure, but I personally enjoyed the well informed back and forth. Much appreciated podcast.
guy on steroids? how do you know this?
Bradford Smith, fair question. I know because I watch this podcast and others with Mike regularly and he’s open about informed intelligent use of gear. Not meant as an insult or disrespect at all. Mike is awesome, one of my favorite guests. He’s also a high level jiu jitsu player which gives you a lot of self restraint and he has a great sense of humor and humility about knowledge that is very refreshing.
Happy to hear that you enjoyed it!
- Pascal
The world has waited for this.
It indeed has!
- Pascal
Basically, numerous significant methodological flaws, outright misuse of statistical analysis methods, and poor interpretation of the data/overconcluding.
I don't know. If so many actual researchers are saying that it's legit, I have a hard time not to believe them.
facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2709106472447753&set=pcb.2709106749114392&type=3&theater
Cody is gathering together people to make another study happen.
- Pascal
@@ReviveStronger Just because lot of PHD says KETO diet is great, doesn’t make it great. What is average intellect of fitness professional is, everyone knows.
I really wish at @53:51 Lyle wrote down what Mikes defense would be then held it up after he said it.
Good work getting this going Steve. I'll happily subscribe.
Jamie, thanks a lot!
- Pascal
I think the problem with this whole discussion is that rest is never equated. I've just did 10x10 of deadlifts and 10x10 of bench with ramping weight. Now strength aside, I would already be done for my volume for the week. It took my total working time was 10 minutes, my total training time was 1hr. Someone would look at this and say "the intensity was low" but if the volume still is high why would that matter if volume does matter?
That's why it was never a clear recommendation of "Do 45sets" but only a conclusion that there seems to be a dose relationship
- Pascal
@UCtsuXmLTyC5PpHuBgdwRegQ no, I totally understood. Just was pointing out the general conclusion. I know people who have the luxury of doing long training sessions with long rest periods and they see great progress. One of them is Valentin Tambosi :)
@@ReviveStronger Let me restate my stance. Total volume is important but I don't think sets are. I think rest will completely destroy the "how many sets" concept in this study. If a person can rest longer he can do more work and more sets. Now how he recovers from that is a different story which is why steroids messes all of these numbers up.
@@Witcherworks ah sorry, I think I understood but didn't address your point. I'd highly assume though, that this would have a threshold. Training byproducts will still accumulate and at some point your central nervous system and peripheral nervous system will fatigue and not be able to recruit all motor units. Steroids can do much, but it doesn't change your entire physiology. It just enhances it
@@ReviveStronger Thanks for responding. You seem to be well adept at this information so you must know that people can out train their own recovery. This is why I added steroids as a HUGE factor. This would totally influence volume on a weekly basis. If these studies cannot control the aspect of steroid use then what does this provide besides confusion for the majority population? I think Lyle is speaking of these things but not trying to bring the elephant out the room because it would cause controversy. I like Mike and think he's very knowledgeable but he tries to avoid critical questions by using general catch all statements.
Wow! (Bad Bunny) I'll call you back. I need to get the popcorn ready for this one. LOL...
Hahaha, Mel in the house!
- Pascal
Okay okay my english is very bad, so how should I train, can I use Mike's volume recommendations as a natural lifter?
Of course you can. No one can tell you how to train though, except for yourself or a coach
- Pascal
1:01:03-1:01:30 is basically Mike's entire argument here. Makes sense to me.
That's great pointing that out!
- Pascal
@@ReviveStronger Thanks, my dudes. And thanks for putting the debate together 🙂
Lyle's jabs at Mike about how he should be a politician are totally on point.
Mike is kind of like a python (or like half a python): huge, thick and slippery.
And veiny and throbbing
and stretchy
- Pascal
A true materpiece! Awesome work guys!
Thanks a tonne and I was stocked myself
- Pascal
Mike Isreatel's sophistry on this made me lose respect for him. His responses are essentially whataboutary and suggesting sports science is purely for hypothesis generation would suggest that any public funding for it should be removed. I'm a professional philosopher of science and simply don't recognise Mike's 'all studies are fundamentally flawed' is illegitimate. Also deliberately excluding middle data from previous papers clearly fails to contextualise the study's results properly. Lying by omission of salient information is below the standards of most scientific fields' peer review. Very poor Mike.
In my opinion, I think you are missrepresenting his point. The whole reason why there are meta analyses, reviews and a scientific method that is subject to constant change with the inclusion of new data is because individual studies and their methodologies are naturally inconsistent and proned to flaws, especially when compared to a larger body of evidence.
Additionally, even an entire body of evidence must be evaluated with skepticism since there is always going to be new, potentially significant factors that have simply not been adequetly tested and have a limited to zero representation in the current evidence, but anecdotally have shown a practical value and warrant further analysis - RPE comes to mind. I don't disagree that Mike is tap dancing, but a lot of his counter points are valid and are worth consideration.
Also, I completely agree with his evaluation that the conclusion of the study should be focused on the study itself, and not neccessarily other data that was not directly produced in that studied. It is an individual study, not a meta analysis. If anything, I think the inclusion of opinions or assertions that are not directly addressing the studied data only increases the potential of adding external, pre-existing biases
that can influence the studies conclusion.
@@timdonald542 meta-analysis has a legitimate role but it suffers from the inherent problem of deciding the criteria for inclusion, by definition the results of the meta analysis are determined once the set of studies is decided and studies often differ significantly both methodologically and in precise aim so deciding if two studies are equivalent is not a trivial task.
My main criticism of Dr I was if his shifting of the goalposts in order the defend a particular study, which when pushed ultimately led him to the ludicrous claim that sports science is "merely hypothesis" generating.
If so then sports science isn't really a science worthy of the name. All legitimate sciences identify manipulatable input variables which can be changed to reliably and robustly manifest certain output changes.
Dr I's definition of MRV is potentially tautological rather than scientific. At worst it is a mantra of "train as hard as you can recover from because that is optimal" then someone asks, how do I know how hard that is and the answer is "if your training progress was optimal then you were doing your MRV" . It's a circle with no logical escape. There ought to be some reliable generally applicable facts about volume etc in order to claim sports science has discovered anything beyond the information already gleaned from decades of praxis
So what's their view points about frequency and volume..
Have you listened to the last bit of the episode?
- Pascal
@@ReviveStronger of course! I just think I misinterpreted it
@@AlexanderDemergis I see. Basically both agree that probably 10-20 sets per bodypart per week, split up in 2-3 sessions is probably best. This however, depends highly on the intensity and exercise selection as well
Both of you guys were incredibly professional, restores my faith!
Yeps, said that to both as well! Then Lyle said to fuck off, haha
- Pascal
As soon as I saw Mike with a fresh cut and shaved knew shit was gonna get real!!
He looked fresh for the Valentines date
- Pascal
Revive Stronger This was definitively foreplay for him. 😂
About 21 minutes in and this is highly entertaining. Both of these guys are incredibly smart and, so far, have been quite civil given the propensity of Lyle to...eh....go full “Lyle”...
Great work, Steve. Getting these guys together is an epic accomplishment.
Thanks a lot Adam!
- Pascal
Mike rolling at MV. His expressions are crazy. LOL
Lyle's expressions are much better imo ;)
- Pascal
Brilliant episode!
Thanks Nathan!
- Pascal
In my personal opinion, Lyle came in just a bit unprepared for this type of argument, considering that he had so many previous concerns/disagreements. Brad should have taking the time to come on and defend him self since it looks like Lyle thinks he's the main offender. Btw..(Revive Stronger) one of my favorite Chanel in UA-cam. Great work.
That's the set up an article immediately after the debate. Sorry to say this, maybe this sounds biased and maybe it is, but it's a poor move. It causes pre-bias and makes him look superior. It's always easy to argue in hindsight. We all had this discussion we wished we had 'I wish I'd have said XYZ'
- Pascal
@@ReviveStronger Amen to that. Facts.
HELL YEAH Steve! Thats what i was waiting for for long time. You have the best channel on youtube srsly
A very long time. I guess it's requested for 2 years now?
- Pascal
Let me get my popcorn. This is going to be GOOD!👀🍿💯🔥
Hope one bag was enough
- Pascal
Mike’s yawns are killing me, they’re perfectly timed 😂
This high volume vs high intensity is the most annoying subject, I cannot believe it hasn't been buried! And being a veteran of this game, I have a ton of anecdotal evidence to support what I believe and Newtonian Physics to back me up. This study is analogous to a person trying to get a tan in Oslo, Norway in Spring, 9 hours of tanning would be better than 6 hours, and 6 hours would be better than 3 hours, but comparing that stupid methodology to Dorian Yates or Dave Palumbo style training is preposterous, Dorian style training is like taking someone up to the top of Kilimanjaro in Equatorial Africa in the middle of summer on a clear day, you'll be sunburned in 5 minutes. The very fact that someone can train quads for 45 sets means they're using no poundage or intensity at all. Not to mention that I know way too many people who train as hard as they can and don't gain muscle because they're eating like shit, and I've seen people who don't train that hard but eat perfectly, and grow muscle because of their high insulin sensitivity and perfect nutrition. This was a bullshit study of the highest order. The biggest I have ever been was 122kg at 11% Body Fat at 5ft 10in, and I got that big by doing 4 x 15-20 minute workouts a week, arms over 20 inchs and thighs just under 30 inches. They're the hardest workouts I've ever don and never did more than 7 total sets per muscle group!!!! 100m Sprinters do Intensity, Marathon Runners do Volume! Run these calculations, F=M*A, W=F*S, P=W/T, if you build your workout around this you will grow and you will not overtrain!
what does higher volume mean? in this study, what's the distinction between high volume, moderate volume and low volume? listening to mike, it seems the group that did 27 sets and the group that did 45 sets is rated as high volume? which they are, so when brad says that more volume is better for hypertrophy, is he saying 27 sets has better hypertrophic benefits than the lower volume group? or is he saying that 45 sets causes greater hypertrophy than 27 sets and the lower volume group? or is he saying doing both 27 and 45 sets is better than low volume?
i have to say that i am with lyle. to me, there's a low volume group, moderate volume group and higher volume group. is this where the confusion lies in brad's conclusion? why couldn't he have said 27 sets yielded better results than the low volume group, and there didn't appear to be much difference between 27 sets and 45 sets
In the study setup, it's quite clear what higher volume means. In a general sense though, it is, of course, individual dependent. The conclusion was/is that there's a dose response to high volume.
- Pascal
journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2019/01000/Resistance_Training_Volume_Enhances_Muscle.13.aspx
Mike needs to make more random comments that piss off fitness people so we can get more of these, any other pet peeves Mike can touch on for the sequal?
Next please, hehe
- Pascal
Lyle made a lot of good questions and Mike did a great job of answering them. It seems almost like Lyle is doing a question and answer with the study and studies in general and it's very enlightening. They are secretly friends, I can feel it. Haha
@@matversion2 wait for the end, you really get the feeling they actually like each other. I honestly thought so until I've seen Lyle's facebook posts and article afterwards
- Pascal
I don't follow Lyle, but you are definitely right, they're besties!
@@ReviveStronger bring on Berkhan or someone of his kind, we both know how much mike likes and respects if and minimalist training.
Don't know why lyle is paying so much attention to method.
The problem of BS' study is they compare different amounts of junky volume.
If everything in the study is right, BS just showed that jubnky high volume is better than junky lower volume.
his study doesn't say anything about quality volume.
We know that 90 sec are not the better way to go for hypertrophy, probably because when you are not completely "rested" TUT is reduced.
so, the point should be; are 45 hard sets, resting 2-3 minuets between sets better than 20 sets resting 2-3 minutes between sets?
@ringobert penelis I think Scott Stevenson also said something similar on this channel.
Lyle touch that point in his post-debate response, (on his website)
We're trying to get enough funding for a similar study design
- Pascal
Such a great discussion!!
Happy you enjoyed it!
- Pascal
Outstanding debate.
Thanks so much for listening
- Pascal
Never seen Mike's eyebrows crunch up like that. Under serious pressure and attempting to deflect to Lyle's previous work. Too bad mike, your true colours come through.
Hehe, it's funny how different people perceive the debate :)
- Pascal
What can i say. From the start i did not understand what all the fuss is about. I interpreted the study exactly the way Mike describes it. Lyle has right in all his critique. Can the study be designed better? Hell yeah. Does this study have value? Of course. At the end, i dont think Brad has misinterpreted or blurred the results on purpose. Definitely we should aim for better study designs and higher the standards. Both sides have valid points, i think Lyle is a bit too fussy and overestimates the value of the conclusion in this case. I wrote the same on fb, cus im lazy and like to comment😂
Very well put and I agree ;)
- Pascal