mentzerbros.... I don't feel so good...
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
mentzerbros.... I don't feel so good...
mentzerbros.... I don't feel so good...
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Gimme the quick version, anon. I’m guessing it’s overrated?
mike (mentzer) says 1 set to failure.
mike (israetel) says 52 sets to ~~*failure*~~.
This is what ~~*failure*~~ looks like according to israetel
The whole thing is just nitpicking a few things Mike got wrong about programming, agrees with him on some things (one of which Mike also got wrong, that full rom or the deep stretch matters--no evidence of this in general), throws around some ad hominens and red herrings, plays an ad for his business, then just disputes the volume thing based on "my studies." So pretty much just nothing.
Funny thing. Israetel doesn't even bring up any studies by name. Just claims they're there. There are a couple meta-analysis. Here's a recent one that I think he's alluding to:
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27433992/
Even if it is true that one more set increases the amount of muscle gained by the indicated amounts, there is no indication that it would continue that way or that after a long enough time, i.e. longer than all the studies tend to run such as 3-4 years, that the gains wouldn't even out or the opposite pattern would happen; that lower volume starts to become better for sufficiently advanced trainees.
Here's a published criticism of the meta-analysis.
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309673355_Reliability_of_meta-analyses_to_evaluate_resistance_training_programmes
Israetel, running a business, is likely just shilling his brand and trying to get more customers by shitting on the opposition. His brand is built around volume and his periodization gimmicks. He even plays an ad for it in the video.
The funny thing about the 52 sets on a specialization program is that when you look at the actually measurements in the paper, you probably might not even notice the difference even if you ran a 52 sets specialization program for years. That's if the "gains" would even continue beyond the period of the study and weren't just a extremely short term thing even within the time period of the study.
Funny thing, he's probably the guy who's meta-analysis Israetel is alluding to yet doesn't even directly cite.
Full ROM doesn't matter?
Not really. Full Rom in general does not seem to offer any additional benefits. Consider pulldowns v. T-bar rows. You can still get a lot of growth for your lats from strict T-bar rows even though you're only using half of the range of motion of a pulldown as far as the lats are concerned. You probably don't even have to do the full rom with pullups or pulldowns for growth. Obviously training for competition lifts, you have to do the full rom. But that's a quirk of those competitions and is an entirely different subject. How much range of motion and what part of the range of motion you need depends on the muscle group. For more reading see:
>https://themusclephd.com/range-of-motion-and-growth/
I completely read that article the other day, but I wasn't fully convinced. Full rom allows you to use lower weights, keep your rom large, decrease risk of muscle tear due to overstretching, and decrease overall risk of injury. For hypertrophy, full rom hits the stretched position and for compounds it hits as many synergist/stabilizer muscles as possible (e.g. you don't do pullups solely for lats). there are individual differences for different muscles, as the article you linked points out, but the research data on those things is pretty poor. so I would only apply those suggestions by including new things, rather than excluding things you think work well for you.
You’re a funny guy
What's with all the funny business? Who are you, the Riddler?
>muh studies
>muh heckin science
I don’t even like HIT cultists but you guys are worse.
>noooooooo don't you dare make gains by spending a tenth of the time in the gym, without buying programming and supplements
Don't care, HIT works. Lifting every other week is cool.
which one looks more aesthetic?
YIKES IS THAT A FRICKING BALDY SUBHUMAN? GROSS
God the absolute state of yt fitness. Everything was figured out in the 90's, please just go to the gym.
also mike ISRAEreL is a manlet who constantly makes sus homosexual remarks
What's his problem? If Mentzer was that much of a schizo with the worst training routine imaginable, what does that say about this israelite? Inb4 he used roids!!!! Yeah Israetel is LITERALLY using tren right now. The dude is on more gear than Mentzer and he supposedly has all the science and data backing him up but he looks like this?
Maybe science based lifting is the meme after all.
The problem is that exercise science as it is is a fairly weak field in general. Quite a few studies have a lot of weaknesses and really should be applied in a lot narrower of a context than guys like Israetel or some other eceleb shilling a program end up applying them. It would be good to have a science-based lifting if the field was actually strong enough to support such a thing. Most of the science-based lifting is just bad methodology at this point on part of the people pushing what they call "science-based."
Exercise science is a low IQ field.
he's not even criticizing mentzer you morons. He is updating the stuff that nobody knew any better. Like how static stretching preworkout actually decreases output. Very simple yet you spergs assume criticism is absolute and is automatically an attack.
lol you actually spent 20mins watching that shit?