Lyle has done it again
TLDR; the studies that the high volume science based training squadron (Israetel, Nippard etc) use to justify their high volume workouts are absolute BUNK and/or fraudulent
High volume sisters, what's your response?
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
Ok you want the real answer to this?
Are you actually ready?
Think you can handle it?
Ok...
Just like steroids, volume is HIGHLY individual dependant
There will be people who can train legs every day and recover from it and so gain from it (see weightlifter Toshiki and some of the old Bulgarian weightlifters)
On the other end of the spectrum there will be people that can't even recover from more than one leg training session every 9 days
So why do we try to group these people together and "science" up some results when we don't do that for, say, a chess grandmaster and someone who can't understand arithmetic?
We simply say one is moronic and one is gifted and it's the same shit here
Yet for some reason no one wants to tell others they are physically gifted or physically moronic anymore
Now with all that said,
The more volume someone can handle increasing over the training block is obviously the way to go and you don't need "science" to show that or tell you otherwise
I'm a research statistician. I've worked at multiple elite research institutions. The thing about these kinds of experiments is that you can't actually claim "A is better than B". What you can do, with some degree of confidence, is say that "A is better than B on average". That last part is extremely important. For any study you can look at the crosstabs and see that there are guys who received the "optimal" treatment who responded terribly. And this is assuming you aren't a giant moron who fricked everything up, which is essentially the state of exercise science as a field.
The non-credentialed abstract readers on youtube like Nippard have no business "popularizing science" because they don't even understand this incredibly basic shit. Schoenfeld and McDonald are probably the most intelligent in the field, and they definitely at least ought to know this and other limitations with these kinds of population studies. But regardless, neither of them is even remotely impressive academically. Essentially by definition, if they were, they'd be in another field. There's some new guy who just got his PhD who's promoting early loaded partials, and he's probably a Schoenfeld tier researcher. Which is to say, someone who wouldn't be able to pass their quals in literally any other field. These people are all a joke honestly.
>What you can do, with some degree of confidence, is say that "A is better than B on average". That last part is extremely important.
Yeah but that last part is also the hardest to get to since it's a really non-scientific field honestly
For instance, the naive approach to my above two scenarios would be to say the average is to hit legs 3.88 days a week and so most people could respond well to that
But even though that's naive it's still essentially impossible to conduct a reasonable experiment to show with any confidence that it's anywhere near average on any normal distribution let alone a normal distribution with the correct parameters
>These people are all a joke honestly.
Agreed
It's why at the end of the day empirical evidence is king
This.
Nippard is a 72kg dyel who is only 80kg on bulk.
That new guy with studies on partials is also making shit up. He claims 52sets per week is the best based on one month training, when in reality is can be just extra storage of glycogene for such volume, when muscle itself degrades.
Nippard probably isn't even 160cm, how heavy is he supposed to be
you don't need to be a researcher/statistician to understand that group averages and individual responses aren't the same.
greg nuckols has talked quite a bit about the importance of inter-individual variability in response to training and in response to different training strategies. he also said he'd like to see more research on these individual differences, as it's more useful for application than knowing what works on average.
This. I need to do 20+ sets all to failure just to feel the tiniest amount of doms. Meanwhile people who have been lifting much longer than me complain about being sore for 3 days from 8 sets
How long have you been lifting cause you're probably still in your noob gains
The longer you lift the less sets and reps you need cause you're stronger and so lifting heavier weight
And these are the people we don't know the volume stats about
Noobs can do pretty much anything and get away with it
McDonald is highly neurotic but Schoenfield is the Mike Mentzer of "sciene" exercise
Lyle is so utterly based
Reminder that brad schoenfeld gathers his own results and his studies are not blinded at all
You can tell who is legit in the field and who is not by who makes excuses for this
>well he can't afford to hire blind assessors so he's making do!
Doesn't matter, work is scientifically invalid
He also pushes the lie that meta-analysis is trustworthy (aka adopt all the individual biases of the papers you are gathering on top of your own, yeah sounds great)
He also misrepresents (aka lies) about the strength of his statistical results when it supports his bias, and denigrates studies which suggest counter to his own bias
He also owns and operates a brand based on high volume training methods, selling books and supplements based on it, which he does not feel the need to declare
He also does not know how to train to anything approaching failure and has not proven that he can adequately conduct studies using this training methodology
tldr exercise science is fricking garbage and based critics like Lyle and Carpinelli (RIP) lay this bare
homie i aint reading all that shit yall just need to go lift and stop overthinking everything
Lift. Eat. Sleep. Lift. Eat. Sleep. I never think about the word hypertrophy or volume, I just train til failure.
he looks old as shit and doesnt lift.
Uhh didnt Schizo McDonald used to recommend crazy high volume routines?
Maybe he changed his mind based on new evidence, you know like science
Why would you change your mind based on a study? Like you literally swore by your mother that doing X is the correct thing for 20 years but then one study comes out and suddenly you change your mind? Why does the study matter?
I reached 3pl8 bench for reps doing my program. My experience and belief is completely mutually exclusive with scientific research and studies. Just because some gay comes up with some pseudoscience that AKSHUALLY x, y z is le scientifically optimal in this statistically insignificant case study, Im not gonna change what works.
Nah, Lyle has always been a moderate. I feel like this thread was made by a mentzer moron thinking it validates hit, but it doesn't. Hit and rp training are both moronic extremes.
He also used to have videos on his private youtube where he very clearly imitated having sex with his dogs.
Mentzerbros we won again
>Junk volume is bad (something everyone knew already)
>must mean no volume (Mentzer roided workout) is the best
moron
I've known this to be true through personal experience going back ages ago. I've always stuck to low volume high intensity and I like to think I hover around my natty limit. Ive heard that homosexual Nippard talk about how you need a gorillion sets a week for each muscle group, and its obviously total bullshit.
Post body dyel with height and weight
You too post body can't wait for laugh
What even is high volume?
Every 4th day, I am currently doing
>8 sets of back and chest
>7-8 sets of arms
>13-14 sets of delts (4 are OHP, rest DB raise variations or facepulls)
>6-7 sets of quads, 2-3 are squats
>7-8 sets of hamstrings/posterior chain, 2 sets are RDLs
>5 sets of calves
Not counting warm up sets, multiply with 2 for an 8 day week.
And what is high intensity?
I am typically within 0-2 reps to failure on most of those sets. I avoid hell-grinders on squats and DLs, last set on any upper body lift is going to grindville tho.
Is this high volume? I'm not aware, I just lift and tweak shit based on how I feel and perform over time.
tons of junk volume
no muscle group needs more or less volume, nor lower or high reps
4-6 sets per muscle group
2-3 exercises per muscle group per day
4-8 reps per set (0-2 RIR, the only thing you got right, preferably 0-1 RIR if you do less sets)
2-3 minutes rest between sets
hit a muscle group every 5-7 days
that's it
any split will do that integrates the above
damn fit sure knows what theyre doing regarding fitness huh
is that the reason 90% of fit is fricking DYEL?
Just lift as much as your body can handle and rest when needed
>i don't know when is that!
train til you know. you will know.
that's all, saved you from watching 300 esay videos with some random manlet moron talking
>muh soience !1!1!1!1!1
i don't know how to read those articles lol, just a bunch of nerd shit for dorkazoids like sample size and flux capacitors or whatever
i just pick things up and put them down until i can't do it anymore, get a good night rest, and repeat the process the next day on muscles i didn't train the previous day
you can keep studying on """optimizing""" your workouts tho lol, cry about how small you are because you do nothing but study
imagine glorifying your own stupidity lol
>i refuse to learn and evolve!!
woah anon... you're so chill
You won't catch Lebron James or Messi reading this nerd shit and changing what they do because some out of touch homosexual in a lab coat made some lofty conclusion on a ~~*funded*~~ study.
Only irrelevant influencer dorks hype this crap up to farm clicks and engagement.
Also
>improving
no you aren't, you're lulling yourself into a false sense of security thinking that by optimizing your technique/routine for an extra 1% of gains that it makes a difference at all in the long run when in reality you fail to realize that you simply do not have the brain capacity nor means to iron out all other variable factors like stress, rest, diet, hormonal levels, timing etc.
focus on the basics you dumbshit, you aren't a BB pro where any of this will matter, and not even they do this moronic nerd shit. they learn through experience and optimize what works for them, not just drop everything they're doing in the name of the great satan science.
go lift some weights you smug dyel
lebron doesn't give a shit about weightlifting, he likes basketball. He cares about basketball. Same for Messi but football. Their coaches don't give a shit about hypertrophy either since it's not really what they look to improve
I don't think he's talking about pro athletes caring about body building. He's making a point about pro athletes not boiling their craft down to a hyper specific science where they study what they need to do to make the perfect shot or perfect pass.
They just practice and tune based on their capabilities.
Honestly this.
While I can appreciate the discourse of what makes an optimized workout for hypertrophy or strength training, it's mainly just a dick measuring contest to brag to your e-friends that you know how to work out.
Body building has been largely "figured out" since the 80s/90s if not earlier. But if we didn't bring these studies up, we'd largely have nothing to talk about on this board. Hence why this board is 50% cumbait, 25% demoralization, 20% ragebait, and 5% actual useful discourse that gets 10 replies tops and buried uder the aforementioned threads.
>just do the basic
But i can do more and i want to, i have time and knowledge for this, so i will do it, why wouldn't i?
What a dumb fricking take. bro is begging me to do just the basic when i CAN and WANT more
Well, no thanks
Söy screaming over muh heckin söyence isn't doing more. Putting more hours in the gym is doing more.
yeah keep limiting yourself because of IST based memes and owning the libs for Kek. optmizing means losing to the djeeewz, it's very cringe and reddit
The past few years high volume has been popular. Now high intensity is coming back in. Wait a few more years and we'll be back into high volume.
It doesn't matter what you do it all works as long as you are consistent.
I absolutely despise this science based workout trend. Every geek on some gear think they have authority now because they find some bullshit study about how a 2 degree pitch to your chest press will optimize muscle activated by 0.05% therefore you're leaving gains at the table if you're not doing this and scream "Science! XD" like I'm supposed to be convinced and not daring to question them.
I don't care you Black folk. Go science your fartbox you internet addicts.
Post body.
fat muh strength pigs cope
How to figure this shit out yourself:
>do low volume for left bicep
>do high volume for right bicep
>see which grows more
>repeat for any other body part you want to know the response to different volumes
simple as. EVERYTHING else is meaningless because individuals vary so fricking much
I saw some other tuber ripping on exercise science, he talked about how Lyle was still kind of based. then this video showed up in my feed a few days later. I wanted to watch it but haven't got around to it yet. I recognize Lyle being around for a long time.
you WILL repent(zer)
No shit, high volume is harder to reach or go near failure compared to just adding weight
I do it because I like it
High volune training is only good for roids ysers. Thats why so many normalgays b***h about not seeing any gains. You’ll just tear a muscle eventually if you go for high vomune without rouds.
Do an athletic speed/dynamic/control focused routine and you’ll see way more gains.
>High volune training is only good for roids ysers. Thats why so many normalgays b***h about not seeing any gains. You’ll just tear a muscle eventually if you go for high vomune without rouds.
good advice
>Do an athletic speed/dynamic/control focused routine and you’ll see way more gains.
Absolute dogshit nonsense. wtf does this even mean?
also post body
Anyone got his ebook, where he painted himself as a pimp having multiple strippers as his hoes that he himself quickly ~~*shut down*~~ after a while?