It's in the study. They started with 20 sets and over one mesocycle went to 52 sets.
I would disagree wuth the result as it might be just more glycogen stored and that's all. They need to check if the result stays.
it is swelling from inflammation. fricking yikes. 52 would be doable without harm if you were doing like sets of 5 with 10-15rm and barely any eccentric
I would also disagree with the results because there’s too many variables to control. Not all sets have the same effectiveness and therefore the amount of sets would change accordingly. If I only took 30s rest between sets then I would have to use a lot less weight/intensity than 120s rest between sets and therefore compensate with extra sets.
>New Science
Schoenfeld is a conartist. Also this study was a quad specialisation programm over 8 weeks.
mentzsisters.... we just keep gripping those Ls......
>train once a week
>52 sets a year
He anticipated this.
Based. But how do we know it isn’t one monthly set for 52 months? Mentzslumberers are we doing it all wrong?
It's one set per year for 52 years.
It's in the study. They started with 20 sets and over one mesocycle went to 52 sets.
I would disagree wuth the result as it might be just more glycogen stored and that's all. They need to check if the result stays.
it is swelling from inflammation. fricking yikes. 52 would be doable without harm if you were doing like sets of 5 with 10-15rm and barely any eccentric
I would also disagree with the results because there’s too many variables to control. Not all sets have the same effectiveness and therefore the amount of sets would change accordingly. If I only took 30s rest between sets then I would have to use a lot less weight/intensity than 120s rest between sets and therefore compensate with extra sets.
He truly is the Mentzssiah. In our foolishness we rejected him and then he died for our sins.
I've been switching to german volume training and so far very pleased with the pumps i've been getting... mileage varies between muscle groups.
why exactly 52 and not 53? why not 104?
any "science" involving the human body is a fricking joke
They found better gains from more sets through the whole study but didn't test above 52.
so the headline is horseshit
Mainstream exercise science is so stupid. They just pick a number and tell you it's the best. They make no attempt to understand the "why" about it.
It's true. I was doing 53 sets, which put me into cardiomode and I overtrained
Can anyone link to the study? All I see are people talking about it, not the study itself.
Imagine believing in studies in 2023. This was probably a study funding by Big 52.
>stop under training
>stop over training
>52 is the sweet spot
What the frick do I do
How do I incorporate this with my exact 40g per meal protein intake?